Professor Ian Chubb, Australia's Chief Scientist and a director of the CSIRO, is urging scientists to contribute to the climate change debate.

I became a scientist because I wanted to understand how things work. For me, the only reliable way to gain this understanding is the scientific method. Without it, we are left with prophecy, divination, fortune-telling and group-think.

Science is primarily about evidence, and the rigorous testing of hypotheses against observations.

According to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis, an observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was the primary cause of the apparent global temperature increase of about 0.8 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. Yet there is little observational evidence supporting it, nor would a small temperature variation over one hundred years be an unusual or "extreme" event.

The truth is AGW remains only an hypothesis; not a proven fact about the Earth's climate. Support for it comes, we are told, from climate modelling. But can a grab-bag of hypotheses expressed in numerical form be described as genuine empirical evidence? And do the models stand up well when rigorously tested against observation?

As a researcher with CSIRO with a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics, I was involved in developing numerical fluid dynamical models similar to those used by climate modellers today.

The CSIRO website statement - "Climate models, which are based on the laws of physics and thoroughly tested, provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change" - is misleading. The "laws of physics" actually play only a minor part in climate model design. Furthermore, the models have no real predictive power. Their "projections" rarely match observations. If they have been "thoroughly tested", the public should be told of the outcomes - especially the frequency of failure. As it is the modelers only show graphs which support their hypothesis.

A more comprehensive version of this letter is available at
http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_09/rallying_to_the_chief_scientist.htm

So in other words, unless you can be 100% certain that you are correct and no matter how severe the consequences, it's better not to put a fence at the top of the cliff but just park an ambulance at the bottom.

Not exactly, rache.

>>So in other words, unless you can be 100% certain that you are correct and no matter how severe the consequences, it's better not to put a fence at the top of the cliff but just park an ambulance at the bottom<<

I think he is saying there's no point in bankrupting yourself putting up a fence at the edge of the cliff, if the drop is only four feet.

Because, as he points out, you are not actually able to look over the edge yourself to check. You are relying on a whole lot of people predicting the length of the drop with "a grab-bag of hypotheses expressed in numerical form".

By the time science makes up it's mind it will be too late to do anything about it. Nothing will ever change the fact ,we have to get off oil and gas. There just happens to be a co2 factor in it as well.

is there really a voice of reason...john?

i..recall...the ozone hole

recall the adverts..from the 90's
burning deserts..global warming

after thatchers..c02 thesis
[ie global cooling*..was proved fraud]

anyhow..lets look at your words

""The truth..is AGW remains..only an hypothesis;""

yes..as does their favoured cure

science isnt about..consencus
[not about..conclusion]
but endless study of fact..

not modeling..that gets tweaked
to re sync-up..the modle with the data

if..the modle/bling is right
it should match predictions
its as simple as poimting out..where it dont..!

and it dont]..trendlines begotten
from mixing data sets..is clear fraud

yes models are..""not
a proven fact..about the Earth's climate."'

""do the models stand up well
when rigorously tested against observation?""

no they dont

but mate..science concenus
lol..also proven fraud..has made those..with only faith/hope
not fact

fall for the grand scam..they took
the free gifts..got the subsidised buy-backs..they sold-out reason

they cant be reasond with
guilt..has made them deaf

""The CSIRO/website statement.."Climate models,which are based on the laws of physics..and thoroughly tested,..provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change"

*is misleading.""

yes it is..but mate
if they got guilt..if they bought..into the lie

if they been..trying to be..oh so clever..
mate they are stuck..with a bad loss of face

they..dont want to hear
""The "laws of physics" actually play
only a minor part..in climate model design.""

they dont know
the affect of the sun or solar activity

""Furthermore,the models..*have no real predictive power."'

i seen that too

""Their "projections" rarely match observations.""

i noted that

""If..[..IF*..they have been.."thoroughly tested",
the public..*should be told..of the outcomes""

yes daily..they would say
we told you so
but then cant
cause the modle bling..is badly flawed

""..especially the frequency of failure.
As it is..the modelers only show graphs
which support..their hypothesis..""

yes mate
but what is a lone vouice
of reason..crying in the wilderness?

and yes
i know your not alone
but their minds..are numb

media is selling the scam
even the abc..has drunk the coolaid

WHAT CAN WE DO?
who is left..to listen?

We're going to run the experiment - that is to say humanity is going to continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. By around 2030 we should know who is right, the climate scientists or the "sceptics."

If I'm still around and not gaga I'll be interested to see the outcome.

Here's the way I think about my own mortality. I'm watching a fantastic soap opera called human history and I just know the TV is going to be turned off before the final eopisode.

Thanks John, nice to have someone talking sense'

We get so much from the doom ratbags here. I wonder how many times someone has to tell them it can't happen, as the doom preachers claim.

I wonder if Ruddy came back, & told them the truth, would they believe?

What I am saying is that climate models are completely worthless; climate modeling is not science.

If you don't believe me check out:

http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_03/hindcasting/index.html

Pericles wrote:

>>I think he is saying there's no point in bankrupting yourself putting up a fence at the edge of the cliff, if the drop is only four feet.>>

The trouble is we don't know the length of the drop. It might be four feet or four inches or four hundred feet.

I do agree with John Reid that climate models are useless. It is as much beyond our ability to model a complex system like climate with all the unknowns and unknown unknowns as it is for banks to model financial risk.

But what I do know is that the preponderance of evidence, taken as a whole, points to a probable catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It therefore seems prudent for the WORLD to take out some insurance.

(Australia acting on its own with a carbon tax is a pathetic exercise in futility.)

I don't expect the WORLD to do anything much about emissions so we'll run the experiment and see what "transpires" (pun intended).

As I said in my previous post, we should have the answer by around 2030.

How old are you Pericles?

Think you'll still be around and compos mentis in 2030? Maybe we can resume this discussion then. :-)

John Reid wrote "As a researcher with CSIRO with a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics, I was involved in developing numerical fluid dynamical models similar to those used by climate modellers today."

John's references Prof Akasofu's case against IPCC modelling predictions. Plenty of counter-argument is out there against Prof Akasofu. Scientific consensus is unmoved by his argument because IPCC models do not claim to provide short term predictions, forward or backward, and that is just what Prof Akasofu has applied the models to do. IPCC models predict a long term trajectory with quantified uncertainties. It's like kicking a goal in a swirling cross-wind.

Something is trotted out daily about why we should not take action, be it amazing new modes of power, carbon capture possibilities or possible causes, other than man-made, for climate change caused by global-warming.

If taking no action or if "wait and see" was a rational option I'd be on board. The problems are projected long term and the attempt at solutions must take the long view as well.

What would be the bigger disaster for the survival of my DNA into the future? Doubt and do nothing then find out (or my progeny find out)I should have done something, or, attempt solutions while scientific consensus gradually forms that there was never actually anything man-made to worry about? The third path is to risk my DNA, because I'm stupidly without doubt, and believe in a global conspiracy theory.

Quite an easy decision for the rational mind.

Lucifer have you ever considered that you may be a bit too close to the gravy to see the train.

Your post is a bit short of common sense anyway, like all global warming garbage.

You can only get serious warming if you include positive feed back, & most of the new peer reviewed research says that is not what happens.

Have you ever thought that a vast increase in newly productive land becomes available in the north for every degree of warming, should it ever occur?

Most of you are no doubt aware that one of the alternatives to greenhouse gas induced climate change is the proposition that cosmic rays might have something to do with climate change.

Whether this is true or not is NOT my issue.

What is, is how different standards are applied to the different propositions.

Here's one example I came across the other day: NewScientist magazine -- a magazine very loud in its advocacy of AGW -- handling a story that marginally touches on cosmic rays contribution to climate change.

"Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html

There we have it: counted out--BUSTED!

"as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds."

Yet, the same magazine/or its stable of hack-reporters would never draw the same conclusion about CO2 & warming. And would be very quick to try and excuse away any lack of correlation.

Yes, Mr Chief Scientist, let us have more debate but please do not try and sell us the proposition that all the dirt is emanating from the skeptics corner--to do so is more like politicking than real science!

Pericles says:

"But what I do know is that the preponderance of evidence, taken as a whole, points to a probable catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

I am always being told about this "preponderance of evidence" and "mountains of evidence" but no-one seems to be able to tell me what it consists of. And how do you "know", Pericles. Because someone once told you about it?

Luciferase says:
"Plenty of counter-argument is out there against Prof Akasofu".

Where is it? What is it?

And:
"It's like kicking a goal in a swirling cross-wind." Do you really think a computer can calculate such a thing better than the Arsenal striker? As a modeler I doubt it. Computer models aren't that good. Climate modeling is much like astrology. Much calculation, much uncritical belief and very little evidence.

john..we have coverd this topic extensivly
here at this forum..

many times we have asked for the proof
and all we get is a mute-silence
or some obsure..propaganda link

we have talked here..of the tweaking emails
where that clever graph was corrected..when the one..data set
didnt give the 'right'..panic...[so the tree-ring data/set
was added to..some other data-set]

mate the thing is those who have..swallowed the spin
refuse to question..their minds..are set

there is not one problem..but at least 3

is it..c02
is it ..cyclic
is this..the best cure

is doing it now cheaper..now/upfront..
than fixing issues..as they arise
IF theory..proves to be fact!

is trading-carbon permits..for money
the best way to get the money..where its needed
getting the cash..to where it does the best..*prevention

or just the easiest way to bailout the banking system
personally..i looked at the many economists..and realised its a way to get..the next bailout from us..now

a permit..allows polution..
its a permission to polute..if c02 is a polution is in dispute
clearly..calling it a polutant...is just like the other name-calling

yes were being poluted into early graves
but not because of carbon..but the other mutagenic polutants

the whole field..is just too poluted
for clear informed thought..to cut through

but mate
please..dont quit trying

if we are going..to set the price
to prop up the market..why not leave..the whole issue..to the market

market price is half of our subsised price
modeling is done on $20..yet the..set price is $23

the worst aspect is indexation...[you know how much money changers..love a set up game..]

[limiting permits..set price indexed increase]
heaps of cash..but not that it gets used..to fix things
[only bailout..the money/market]

its a grand-scam
easy-money..when..the poluteer
who got free carbon/permits..that you can sell..for market rate[$13]

as opposed to us muggins..
needing to buy them..but cant resell them
just that alone..should awake..the sleepers

but they dont

i rekon its simply guilt
they got..their free..solar-cells
got their ability..to sell the solar power..[for double its cost]

and to realise..their guilt..is the problem
they just cant go there

and so..the lies continue

Thank you John Reid

For starting this discussion thread and by-passing all that troublesome peer reviewed rubbish.

And further thanks; humans can continue to pollute, use all non-renewable resources without repercussion.

Here was I thinking that there are always consequences for our actions - large or small.

Back to business as usual!

Hooray!

Can't wait to put down a deposit on a Hummer right now.

Consume, excrete, consume. Love capitalism and the lengths people will go to justify it.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
links to Prof Akasufo's graph. The green arrow/red dot is where we are today. The IPCC prediction curve (and surrounding pink colouration supposedly showing the uncertainty of applying the model) is juxtaposed against the Prof's theory that we're coming out of a mini-ice age on a gentle temperature uptrend with multi-decadal oscillations.

The pink area is doubtful at short periods of prediction as the uncertainty is actually greatest when the model is applied in the short term, not at its smallest as the graph shows.

There is argument and counter-argument over where we're going long-term, John. The IPCC says its right, the Prof says he is.

Regarding the evidence, and how much there is for AGW, it can be found in the IPCC report.

I hope the Prof is right, but I'm not accepting the present position (red dot) says anything about the Prof's long-term view

Come on Lucy, we all know the IPCC doesn't do predictions, well at least that what they tell us when yet another "scenario" is proven totally wrong.

When exposed to the hard light of day, the IPCC has yet to get anything right.

They have been caught out cheating at every turn. The only possible excuse to believe them is you are a fellow traveler, or are receiving a benefit from doing so.

It would be truly excellent, Hasbeen, if you could discuss without going for the man. No gravy-train, no benefit from taking one view or another for me? It simply doesn't strengthen your point.

So the IPCC is always wrong? Is that you saying that, Hasbeen? If so, write a peer reviewed paper refuting the lot in a scientific journal. Alternatively, point to refuting evidence over which there is consensus agreement. Either way, back up your scientific assertions with something, anything, other than attacking the man or pointing towards a massive conspiracy.

Tiresome troll.

Let's face it folks, reducing carbon is code for reducing fossil fuel use. That's not a bad idea in and of itself, given the imminent (or just passed) "peak oil".

Whether it might also help to mitigate any impacts of AGW that may or may not exist is rather an unnecessary added complexity, surely?

one under god says
"but mate
please..dont quit trying"

Thanks mate.

Ammonite says
"Love capitalism and the lengths people will go to justify it."

This issues isn't about capitalism. It's abour real science vs pseudo-science. There is no evidence for AGW apart from the old Arrhenius (1896) nonsense and climate models. I have been a modeler and my professional judgement is that climate models are utter rubbish - garbage in garbage out.

Antiseptic says:
"Let's face it folks, reducing carbon is code for reducing fossil fuel use. That's not a bad idea in and of itself, given the imminent (or just passed) "peak oil"."

The problem with that is that taxing emissions favours the more scarce resource. We may be running out of oil but we are running out of coal much more slowly. So why introduce a system which favours oil over coal?

Luceferase
"I hope the Prof is right, but I'm not accepting the present position (red dot) says anything about the Prof's long-term view"

Akasofu is a hero of mine. When I was a young post-doc Akasofu came up with the idea of the "Auroral Substorm" which was THE major breakthrough in my field. He is a real scientist. He wants to see the data, see the evidence, not go along with some quasi-religious BS because it happens to attract funding.

Maybe you are not a scientist and not used to assessing data, but believe me those maps at

http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_03/hindcasting/index.html

say it all.

I agree with you that the particular model is flawed, but that's more for political reasons than anything else. given the extent of personal indebtedness it would not be politically feasible to place an impost on consumer use of oil-based products.

Besides, coal is a concentrated emitter, which makes it much easier to deal with than all those cars, as well as being a much longer-term proposition. Oil will fade as a resource and electricity generated from coal will provide a great deal of the power that oil once provided. It actually makes some sense to encourage the development of new industry based on carbon (and other exhaust gases)capture and reuse/sequestration, since coal is going to be the main power source for a hundred years or more. Why allow all that useful carbon to go to waste?

Where it all falls down is in the creation of a complex, no doubt destined to corruption, derivative scheme. That won't encourage new industry here, it'll just encourage cheap, shoddy offshore schemes for growing trees or similar that will have no long-term benefit at all.

John, there are reasonable counter-arguments out there against Prof Akasufo's theory that we are simply exiting a little ice age. Just google them, eg. http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm

For the reasons I've already posted, there is doubt enough not to assume he is right. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence from the work of many other scientists collated in the IPCC report to indicating AGW is not imagined.

John, you say "There is no evidence for AGW apart from the old Arrhenius (1896) nonsense and climate models"

Arrhenius demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is tested, incontrovertible science, accepted by all but you, John (hang on, does this mean there is no consensus on it?) This odd position throws into doubt your own analysis of the IPCC report when you say there is no evidence for AGW.

Furthermore, you don't help by linking your odd statement about Arrhenius to your position on modelling. Any modelling involves calibration against reality and inclusion of new-found affecting variables and other adjustments until the resultant algorithm approximates reality as closely as possible. This does not mean modelling, per se, is nonsense or that its projections into the unknown must be unerringly accurate on any timescale.

Prof Akasufo's maps result from applying a model designed for long term projections to short terms, creating a source of dispute over his findings. All the while, the onus is still upon him to support his little ice age theory rather than expecting it to be an agreed upon assumption.

PS Arrhenius was a bit out on his experimental finding about the effect of doubling,say, CO2 concentrations, but pretty close for 1896. Perhaps he was carrying all that stuff on acids and bases around in his head, and many other areas of science he has credibly contributed towards.

Nonsense? have some respect, John

Luciferase

Arrhenius did not "demonstrate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas", he demonstrated that it is an infrared absorber.

The reason I use the term "nonsense" with regard to Arrhenius is because it has now been known for some considerable time that the temperature of the lower tropopause is controlled not by radiation but by the adiabatic lapse rate which is a consequence of convection. Convection completely dominates radiation with regard to heat transport in the lower atmosphere. Because this was not known at the time when Arrhenius wrote his paper, in 1896, it was neither considered nor discussed by him. I have no disrespct for Arrhenius but I do for people who continue to quote this paper as if it were still somehow relevant.

With regard to Akasofu, the issue is not whether his tentative, alternative Little-Ice-Age theory is correct or not, but his exposure of the failure of climate models to successfully account for past and present climate. If our model cannot do that, we must re-examine the model assumptions in order to find out what went wrong. It is not about adjusting the model to fit "as closely as possible"; that is called "curve fitting" and every experimentalist knows that it can lead to disaster.

The onus is hardly on Akasofu to get his model right. There are obviously major forcings in play which are not accounted for in "respectable" climate models. It is not Akasofu who is attempting to reshape the global economy.

Science progresses when a model (or theory or hypothesis) fails and thereby forces us to look for a better model. That is the essence of the scientific method. This why Ptolemaic astrononomy was abandoned. When we overlook the failure of a theory or model for reasons of ego or ideology we short-circuit this process and undermine the scientific method.

Let's distinguish between a model and an algorithm as they are often conflated.

Before the Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom (electrons in fixed orbits about the nucleus) there was a known algorithm for calculating the spectrum of the hydrogen atom which involved integer values. Nobody knew why it worked. When the model was proposed with accompanying mathematics built on first principles, the integers turned out to be the electron orbit number in the model. Although mathematics perfectly described the simple case of the hydrogen atom it could not extend to more complex atoms other than serve as a basis for approximation. To this day day there is no perfect algorithm that describes their spectra, only approximations. Nevertheless, the model survives (albeit that orbit numbers got replaced with other ideas).

A model serves as a concrete way of seeing something mathematical. In climate science there is no simple case analogous to the hydrogen atom, only complexity. We are stuck with approximation. We are deducing algorithms that may successfully describe the past and therefore provide faith in future projections. It's a work in progress.

Prof Akasufo's projections use the algorithms (there isn't just one) designed for long term projections for short term foresight and hindsight. This leaves his work open to dispute. Also, his exiting-the-Little-Ice-age theory which he uses as the default point of comparison for projections arrived at is also in dispute.

"I have no disrespct for Arrhenius but I do for people who continue to quote this paper as if it were still somehow relevant."

We shouldn't split hairs over what was discovered in 1896. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the higher its concentration the higher the its effect. Is it responsible for the very high night-time temperature on Venus. Is this in seriously in dispute in any reputable scientific forum/publication?

With no disrespect meant to him in return, perhaps John should be plying his scientific arguments in the right place, rather than this layman's blog-spot, as he has obviously has ground-breaking news to share with the scientific community.

john..are the 'other greenhouse gasses'
in the modeling..?

lets not forget that home compost produces..*methane
[tax them greenies with worm farms]

how about nitrogen..80 times as bad as c02
you know nitrogen..that makes that nice green salad

farmers use lots of it...in making soy juice
and worse is that 60%..of all nitrogen applied onto crops
by the protected farmers industry

nitrogen..turns into nitrous oxide..
[120 times worse than a c02]

then we come to that solar cell cleaner
hundreds of times worse than c02

and the list goes on
but so too the collective ignorances

i note the normal carbon tax
cheer squad is mute with guilt

abbot if he really didnt want the tax
would raise these questions in parlement

that he dont
reveals he is just a mr no..[too]
he wants the tax..but wants to be..seen as opposing it more

so when he goes the double disolution
workers will once again resent,,the new tax

and the new laws his election will raise..

[but those running the 2 party
scam..will say well done allround]

and still the party blindness
from the party lotalists refuse to face the ugly truth

this is about the next the cut for workers
that cuts their wage

recall gst..10% cut in wage
recall compulsory super to bailout
the investers[running the 2 pary scam]

10%..cut in workers wage

ditto the carbon tax
dont be foooled that only 1000..[oops sorry only 500 will pay]

and that 9/10 will get extra..the darn tax is indexed

meaning its going to grow..at inflation rate..FOREVER
based on spin and lies

look at the big number
the carbon tax is going to cost 70 BILLION..to get rid of
erxpected to raise over a trillion

who is paying that LOSS of income

the mug workers
ie larratters/liberals greenies alike

next tax the other GREENhouse gasses
more tradeable commodies..[thin air]

silence is guilt?

Oh dear, John Reid.

>>Pericles says: "But what I do know is that the preponderance of evidence, taken as a whole, points to a probable catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."<<

I sincerely trust you are more careful in your references "as a researcher with CSIRO with a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics."

For the record, stevenlmeyer is the one knowledgeable about the preponderance of evidence. The same person who asked me this:

>>As I said in my previous post, we should have the answer by around 2030. How old are you Pericles? Think you'll still be around and compos mentis in 2030? Maybe we can resume this discussion then. :-)<<

Less than twenty years into the future? I certainly hope to be around then, stevenlmeyer, sound in mind and limb. And if you'd like my predictions, here they are. One, that we will still be arguing about climate change. Two, that we will be doing so in a world whose climate has barely shifted from its present state. And three, that we will have made significant progress towards widespread access to renewable energy sources.

If you'd like a fourth, bonus prediction, it would be that there will be some who will claim that two is as a result of three. But won't be able to "prove" it, hence the ongoing argument.

Pericles

Sorry mate - incorrect attribution. I am not used to this blog which has the author's name at the bottom of each post rather than near the top.

Luciferase says:
"We are deducing algorithms that may successfully describe the past and therefore provide faith in future projections."

That "may" successfully describe the past? May?

My point is that that they DO NOT successfully describe the past and therefore should NOT be used to provide future projections. To base public policy on such models would be criminally stupid but that is precisely what is about to happen. Please look at the maps from the Ensembles Project half way down the page at

http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_03/hindcasting/index.html

I will say it again - the models do not work!

This is hardly surprising. Meteorological models can predict no more than 3 weeks ahead. Oceanographic models can predict no more than 6 months ahead (e.g. El Nino). We are expected to believe that if we couple these models together they are suddenly able to predict decades or even centuries ahead. Give me a break.

I appreciate your arguments from spectrography; yes the algorithms existed before the models. The big difference is that those algorithms worked to a very high degree of precision. Climate models do not work at all, that's the problem.

Look to the source of your arguments John

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

I prefer actual established scientific organisations rather than those devoted to a single aim.

We cannot continue to pollute, degrade our ecosystems and use all our fossil fuels without consequences.

You have not discussed any of the above - preferring to focus on a single issue - which has been proven as untrue. Climate modelling continues to bear out predictions. I wish you were correct. But we don't live on a magic pudding - what we are doing has repercussions.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

All we do know for sure is that the climate is definitely changing. You can debate the cause if you wish, but making changes to clean sustainable technologies is just simply good sense. If the changes are not as severe as predicted - well then we got off - lucky us and we will have gained a sustainable future.

But to do nothing - which I believe from your posts, is what you are arguing, is absurd.

John Reid wrote, Friday, 30 September 2011 12:16:42 PM:

>... Science is primarily about evidence, and the rigorous testing of hypotheses against observations. ... Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) ... remains only an hypothesis; not a proven fact ...

Scientists do not deal in "proven fact", only hypotheses which might be later disproved by new evidence.

As a professional I have to weigh up the available evidence and act in the interests of my clients, and ultimately, in the public interest. I can't wait for certainty.

The evidence presented for human caused global warming is now sufficiently credible to act on. The cost of not acting would be unacceptably high.

So in the course I wrote on "ICT Sustainability", I treat global warming as a certainty and then go on to detail how computers and telecommunications can be used to reduce carbon emissions: http://www.tomw.net.au/ict_sustainability/

Climate models incorporating CO2 levels give hindsight matches better than modelling that doesn't. It is reasonable, just on this basis, to expect that CO2 should impact on foresight projections.

John's basic premise, that modelling, per se, does not and can not give meaningful information on anything, let alone climate science, is a baseless assertion which the example of the hydrogen atom refutes. An algorithm, developed in hindsight i.e. using experimental results,and which revolved around integers, was found to apply well. Nobody knew why. Niels Bohr used this mathematical modelling as as a pointer to help him formulate his precise physical and mathematical theory of atomic structure. Whether the algorithm was developed from curve-fitting to experimental data or simply divined, is irrelevant. It was useful.

John's quixotic tilt at established science is his right, but his position that CO2 has no impact because it is not a greenhouse gas and that modelling incorporating greenhouse gas information has a poor track-record will take a courageous defense in proper scientific fora.

Meanwhile, my advice to laymen on OLO is to accept the scientific consensus on AGW or, if your predjudices can not allow you to go that far, accept that it MAY be right. Then apply rational thought and come up with how we should respond to it. All roads will lead you to the same conclusion.

i will ignore lici-erase implicite threat
in the yes minester mould..'coragous'

and focus on his her other quote
""a baseless assertion
which the example of the hydrogen atom refutes.""

which is studying affect
to find prime 'cause?

not assume cause
to have affect?
[ignoring all the other causes..plus the latest addendumb
in todays news..of the ozone hole over the antarctic..growing bigger..CAUSe.of the extreemly cold winter downunder..!

sems a cold spell preceeds a warming event
to wit this larger OZONE hole allows in more heat
so this summer will be hotter..

[if other affects..;modifiers like cloud cover..
dont mitigate the knockon affect..of the bigger ozone depletion..?]

noting the role of ozone
depletion..is green house gasses
ie
nitrous oxide..methane..cfc's...
and least of all c02

HOW MANY ARE IN THE MODELING?

i can keep asking till we get a reply

""Whether the algorithm was developed from curve-fitting
to experimental data or simply divined,..is irrelevant.""

if trying to find cause
NOT changable various MULTIPLE affects

""It was useful.""

so is fear
and ignorance

when your after new taxes
or grants and subsidies..
to do the research..that pays best

not that which..is most needed
or most usefull

how much more usefull
to find alternatives

or
make useless models?

Ammonite likes to argue from authority and says:
"I prefer actual established scientific organisations rather than those devoted to a single aim."

You mean like www.globalchange.gov?

And:
"But to do nothing - which I believe from your posts, is what you are arguing, is absurd."

To do something based on ignorance and misinformation is surely even more absurd.

Your NASA reference states:
"In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet."

This suggests some sort of statistical process has been conducted leading to the "90 percent certainty" figure. This is not the case. The figure is based solely on what the 1300 scientists (or some sub-set of them) felt about the situation. If you tried to market a pharmaceutical on this basis you would be in serious trouble with the law.

tomw says:
"The evidence presented for human caused global warming is now sufficiently credible to act on."

What evidence are we talking about here? Modeling evidence? Or perhaps the number of True Believers.

And:

"I treat global warming as a certainty"

You are welcome to do so. I am merely pointing ou that there is no scientific basis for that conclusion.

Precisely, John

The link to http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings was supplied by NASA.

Not a "higher authority" so much as credible ones.

Like this:

" Trees are taking up a similar amount of carbon, but whether this will continue is much less certain, as the recent forest damage illustrates.

Carbon dioxide is an essential part of the cycle of life on Earth, but geologic history suggests that too much can cause the climate to warm sharply. With enough time, the chemical cycles operating on the planet have a tendency to bury excess carbon.

In the 19th century, humans discovered the usefulness of some forms of buried carbon — coal, oil and natural gas — as a source of energy, and have been perturbing the natural order ever since. About 10 billion tons of carbon are pouring into the atmosphere every year from the combustion of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests.

The concentration of the gas in the atmosphere has jumped 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution, and scientists fear it could double or even triple this century, with profound consequences.

While all types of plants absorb carbon dioxide, known as CO2, most of them return it to the atmosphere quickly because their vegetation decays, burns or is eaten. Every year, during the Northern Hemisphere growing season, plants and other organisms inhale some 120 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere, then exhale nearly the same amount as they decay in the winter.

It is mainly trees that have the ability to lock carbon into long-term storage, and they do so by making wood or transferring carbon into the soil. The wood may stand for centuries inside a living tree, and it is slow to decay even when the tree dies.

But the carbon in wood is vulnerable to rapid release. If a forest burns down, for instance, much of the carbon stored in it will re-enter the atmosphere. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?tntemail0=y&_r=1&emc=tnt&pagewanted=all

Cont'd

Cont'd

Or from Australia's own:

" But what about forecasting Australia’s future energy needs for, say, 2050? Despite the uncertainty in such a task, every government and major energy company in the world is involved in forecasting the future of energy for one simple reason: infrastructure.
Big investments need reliable projections

The Munmorah Power Station is still going strong.

Most energy infrastructure has a 25-50 year lifespan. Our largest power stations are built with a 40 year lifespan in mind, but that can be extended to 50 years with the help of refurbishments.

One example is the Munmorah Power Station on the New South Wales Central Coast. It’s still operating despite being commissioned 42 years ago.

Given the multi-billion-dollar cost of such infrastructure, government and energy companies need to know what needs to be in place as society changes and populations shift.

And, when you have to make payments on a multi-billion-dollar loan for the next 30 years, you want to know that what you’re building will be relevant to energy use demands of the next 25-50 years....

... Consider a proposal for a large-scale solar plant. As energy modellers, here are some of the questions we’d need to be able to answer:

What is the future wholesale price of electricity?
How will the cost of solar energy and its competitors improve over time?
What’s the best location for the project, given the location of the existing grid connection points and the variation in sunlight across the country?
How does a carbon price and other policies change the above factors?

By answering these questions we can then guide and inform investment decisions made by government and industry. "

http://theconversation.edu.au/beyond-the-crystal-ball-why-energy-modelling-is-more-than-a-guessing-game-3509

Big business needs climate modelling just as much as any other organisation, government, private or NFP in order to make the best decisions for their/our future.

Luciferase says:
"John's basic premise, that modelling, per se, does not and can not give meaningful information on anything, let alone climate science, is a baseless assertion".

That is not my basic premise and at no time did I imply that it was. I am not a nihilist; I am a working scientist with experience in numerical fluid dynamical modeling.

My basic premise is that computer models, as the numerical encapsulation of a number of hypotheses, must be tested against real world data just like any other scientific hypotheses. The scientific method should not be abandoned because a model was run on a very fast computer and thousands of man-hours went into its development. All models, climate models or otherwise, must be rigorously tested against real world observations, not just once against cherry-picked data, but time and time again so that their strengths and weaknesses can be evaluated and understood. The results of such testing should be made publicly available and not squirreled away in case future funding is jeopardised.

I was lucky to find in the Ensemble Project. The climate models used there failed to hindcast observational data with regard to the geographical distribution of warming and cooling (http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_03/hindcasting/index.html). If better models which didn't fail in this way had been avaiable I feel sure that the Ensemble Project would have used them.

It appears that the rules which apply to the rest of science are being waived when it comes to climate models. As a physicist I find that deplorable. Computers should be used to enhance science, not displace it.

Neither did a I say that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. I said that Arrehnius only showed that it was an infra-red absorber. Whether that implies that it warms the earth by trapping radiation is not yet settled. That is why we are having this discussion.

Ammonite

I have no beef with the sort of modeling you refer to. It is necessary. We need to plan for future power stations as best we can. All good stuff.

But there is a difference in kind between the sort of modeling that you are talking about and models which purport to support the rather remarkable assertion that human activity is somehow changing the climate of the planet. I would be more inclined to go along with them if anyone were able to demontrate that there was something unusual about the climate of the 20th century. We know from historical records, from sediments and from ice cores that the climate changes all the time. At issue is whether the observed variation is statistically significant. It does not appear to be so.

Then sham models were put forward that were riddled with fudge factors ("flux corrections") and ad hoc ajustments ("water vapour feedback") and which purport to predict the climate of the planet centuries into the future. This isn't science, mate; it's astrology.

Pericles wrote:

>>….I certainly hope to be around then, stevenlmeyer, sound in mind and limb. And if you'd like my predictions, here they are. One, that we will still be arguing about climate change. Two, that we will be doing so in a world whose climate has barely shifted from its present state. And three, that we will have made significant progress towards widespread access to renewable energy sources.

If you'd like a fourth, bonus prediction, it would be that there will be some who will claim that two is as a result of three. But won't be able to "prove" it, hence the ongoing argument.>>

Well if I’m still alive in 2030 I’ll be 85. Here are my predictions:

Atmospheric CO2 levels will be in the range 430 – 440 ppm. (Currently around 385 ppm)

We will be seeing significant climate shifts though nothing catastrophic.

Neither side will concede anything. The “sceptics” will be asserting these are natural changes.

The “catastrophists” will claim catastrophe is just around the corner.

The biggest problem is likely to be not climate change but ocean acidification although I would not under-estimate the ability of ocean flora and fauna to adapt to and partially negate acidification.

Just to make my own position clear (yet again)

The preponderance of evidence, which I have explained elsewhere and which does NOT rely on elaborate climate models, suggests that a climate catastrophe is a likely outcome of continuing to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Not a certainty. But a reasonable probability.

However I am not going to go into all that again here.

See you in 2030 if we’re both still around and compos mentis.

ammonium nitrate..quote..""If a forest burns down, for instance,
much of the carbon stored in it will re-enter the atmosphere."

mate
use your eyes
when we watched many forrest burn on tv
you se the bulk..of the arbon...[them blackend trees]
still standing*

to wit only the leaves..grasses and twigs got 'burnt'
ie the lassdt years carbon..not the 20 years or 100 years of carbon IN THE TRUNK

i thought you came from common sense country stock
and would have at least driven past many 'burnt' forrests

this lie[clear lie]
invalidates the rest of the link

and clear lies have been one consistant
in the whole topic

i thought today..to ask kids
what is polution?

[sold on the lie..that carbon IS POLUTION]
im sure most will say carbon..!

these ignorants will be raised on the lie
that carbon is THE WORST POLUTANT

as they eat/breath/wash in
the real polutants
and die of cancers

mate..little lies..*become big lies
a step at a time

you missing the for-rest for the trees
just like all the others..born of guilt blame and shame

[sold by huge lies]
for yet anouther new tax
a tax that dont go to govt
but direct to the globalist scamers

[to REALLY polute
elsewhere]..and kids will know no different

just like we were once told that ddt is a vitamin
or fibro cottages was good housing..[best practice]

or smoking causes cancer
[i repeat the incidence of smokers vesis non smokers
getting all forms of cancer...*is the same][thus cant be a factor..except by statistical lie.

to wit...SPIN*

John Reid says, with the gravitas of a consensus of climate scientists, "We know from historical records, from sediments and from ice cores that the climate changes all the time. At issue is whether the observed variation is statistically significant. It does not appear to be so."

The last sentence ignores facts and analyses available to all in the IPCC report, which brings together the findings of many scientists and scientific disciplines applied to climate science, not just modelling which John focuses upon and is wrong about.

Regarding the earlier sentences, yes, climate has changed over millions of years and within millenia. What we have here is a rapid change, accelerating beyond anything man has ever had to deal with except extreme events.

In the space of a man's lifetime, we either have to adapt to coasts, harbours and tidal rivers flooding into many world settlements, increasingly extreme and numerous weather events, dry places getting wetter and vice-verse, and other consequences of CO2 such as acidification of the oceans to the point of affecting our food chain.

If you simply have faith that man will change and adapt, you are probably right, even though earth, our petri-dish, may win the day and world population takes a dive.

As an organism our drive is to send our own DNA into the future. We are not bacteria living on a petri-dish, ultimately suffocating themselves in their own wastes. We have rational minds that can be turned to creating sustainability. We must start on this now rather than waiting until the eleventh hour when we will be swamped by the the exponential arithmetic of the problem. Should we simply adapt, or, or should we work the problem from both ends? Do you want to risk your own DNA to an uncertain fate?

It is not sufficient to coddle ourselves in the fact that climate change is a constant. It is not sufficient to put our faith in the opinion of one scientist whose work is in dispute. Our basic instinct is to protect our DNA with our intellect and our actions.

Thanks people.

It has been an interesting discussion. I circulated the original letter to major newspapers and other blogs. OLO was the only place where it appeared. I see from Science Heresy web stats that I have reached 17 people.

Next time I will hand out leaflets in Bourke Street.

Cheers