<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Says smart stuff]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:50:21 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/1 Good info - but few can access it

Many thanks to Tom Wrigley for his intelligent and documented response.

One observation - almost all the links cited are behind paywalls. This means that most Web readers are shut out from this information which is critical for understanding global warming and our survival.

This doesn't make any sense at all. I understand the problems of financing scientific publications, but we need to find a new model for delivering critical scientific information. Times have changed and what worked in the 40s no longer works today.

Popular science writing can help, but there's nothing like reading the original papers.

Bart Anderson
Energy Bulletin

]]> Good info - but few can access it

Many thanks to Tom Wrigley for his intelligent and documented response.

One observation - almost all the links cited are behind paywalls. This means that most Web readers are shut out from this information which is critical for understanding global warming and our survival.

This doesn't make any sense at all. I understand the problems of financing scientific publications, but we need to find a new model for delivering critical scientific information. Times have changed and what worked in the 40s no longer works today.

Popular science writing can help, but there's nothing like reading the original papers.

Bart Anderson
Energy Bulletin

]]> Comment #2 by Benny Big Eye http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:05:35 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/2 Skeptical Heretic, blah, blah, blah

So Wigley is essentially saying what we knew all along: that the non-skeptic herectic (remember the "radical middle" line from the mid-nineties?) was just a bunch of nonsense masquerading as deep thought. As Wigley points out, Roger has published more on hurricanes, but not "hurricane science."

So what does Roger do? Pielke is just trying to insulate himself against charges that he's little more than a contrarian whose blog functions as a chum line to lure in journalists.

Wigley may be more respected in science and he may have published widely in science, but he is not often heard from, unlike some media stars who blog.

Thanks for this, David.

Benny Big Eye

]]> Skeptical Heretic, blah, blah, blah

So Wigley is essentially saying what we knew all along: that the non-skeptic herectic (remember the "radical middle" line from the mid-nineties?) was just a bunch of nonsense masquerading as deep thought. As Wigley points out, Roger has published more on hurricanes, but not "hurricane science."

So what does Roger do? Pielke is just trying to insulate himself against charges that he's little more than a contrarian whose blog functions as a chum line to lure in journalists.

Wigley may be more respected in science and he may have published widely in science, but he is not often heard from, unlike some media stars who blog.

Thanks for this, David.

Benny Big Eye

]]> Comment #3 by bhurley http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:38:38 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/3 Readily available

Bart Anderson wrote: One observation - almost all the links cited are behind paywalls. This means that most Web readers are shut out from this information which is critical for understanding global warming and our survival.

These are mainstream scientific publications; Scientific American and Science can be found in almost any good public library, and Nature can be found in any university science library. I agree that it would be nice to be able just click and see the references, but it costs money to print magazines and pay editors. Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth DVD isn't free.

]]> Readily available

Bart Anderson wrote: One observation - almost all the links cited are behind paywalls. This means that most Web readers are shut out from this information which is critical for understanding global warming and our survival.

These are mainstream scientific publications; Scientific American and Science can be found in almost any good public library, and Nature can be found in any university science library. I agree that it would be nice to be able just click and see the references, but it costs money to print magazines and pay editors. Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth DVD isn't free.

]]> Comment #4 by GRLCowan http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:14:39 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/4 One of the papers ...

... "Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet" is on the web at http://upload.mcgill.ca/economics/981.pdf .

I'm no..., "breaking the Ca-CO2 bond requires substantial energy", without quantifying "big" or "substantial". This is known as handwaving, and seems to be done here when precision and accuracy would make the mentioned difficulties seem less difficult.

Also, it makes more sense to speak of breaking the CaO-CO2 bond, since CaO, not elemental calcium, is the solid product.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

]]> One of the papers ...

... "Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet" is on the web at http://upload.mcgill.ca/economics/981.pdf .

I'm no..., "breaking the Ca-CO2 bond requires substantial energy", without quantifying "big" or "substantial". This is known as handwaving, and seems to be done here when precision and accuracy would make the mentioned difficulties seem less difficult.

Also, it makes more sense to speak of breaking the CaO-CO2 bond, since CaO, not elemental calcium, is the solid product.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

]]> Comment #5 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:59:16 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/5 If Exxon can do it....

bhurley: These are mainstream scientific publications; Scientific American and Science can be found in almost any good public library, and Nature can be found in any university science library. I agree that it would be nice to be able just click and see the references, but it costs money to print magazines and pay editors. Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth DVD isn't free.Yes, it is possible to get the material and for me access is not a problem.

What I'm arguing is something different. We are faced with a situation in which it is critical to get accurate, complete information spread to the widest audience possible. As a sometimes web developer, I know that every impediment you place in the path of a reader reduces the readership  drastically.

One example of how paywalls sabotage the effort - when I or any other blogger look for research or supporting information, we look on the web first. If a document is available, we quote a few sentences and link back to the original. If I have to drive to the library to get it and copy the text, I will not bother 99% of the time.  Due to the amplifying effect of the blogosphere, a good online article can quickly get tens or hundreds of thousands of reads.

Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobile is busy crafting press releases, advertisements and online presentations.  If they can get scientists to cast doubt on global warming, they do everything they can to make that information freely available. They do not hide it behind a paywall.

And we wonder why the population is confused about climate change?  

I believe there are efforts afoot within the scientific community to make research articles more readily available. We should support these.

The fact that it costs money to generate information is not an impediment.  Many funding models are possible.  Many documents are traditionally made available for the public good.

With little effort, publications could identify those articles of critical importance and  make those freely available.

]]> If Exxon can do it....

bhurley: These are mainstream scientific publications; Scientific American and Science can be found in almost any good public library, and Nature can be found in any university science library. I agree that it would be nice to be able just click and see the references, but it costs money to print magazines and pay editors. Even Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth DVD isn't free.Yes, it is possible to get the material and for me access is not a problem.

What I'm arguing is something different. We are faced with a situation in which it is critical to get accurate, complete information spread to the widest audience possible. As a sometimes web developer, I know that every impediment you place in the path of a reader reduces the readership  drastically.

One example of how paywalls sabotage the effort - when I or any other blogger look for research or supporting information, we look on the web first. If a document is available, we quote a few sentences and link back to the original. If I have to drive to the library to get it and copy the text, I will not bother 99% of the time.  Due to the amplifying effect of the blogosphere, a good online article can quickly get tens or hundreds of thousands of reads.

Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobile is busy crafting press releases, advertisements and online presentations.  If they can get scientists to cast doubt on global warming, they do everything they can to make that information freely available. They do not hide it behind a paywall.

And we wonder why the population is confused about climate change?  

I believe there are efforts afoot within the scientific community to make research articles more readily available. We should support these.

The fact that it costs money to generate information is not an impediment.  Many funding models are possible.  Many documents are traditionally made available for the public good.

With little effort, publications could identify those articles of critical importance and  make those freely available.

]]> Comment #6 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:03:33 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/6 I think there are efforts in the works ...

... to create a kind of open-source science journal. As I recall, our very own Andrew Dessler has written about this. Perhaps he'll drop by and enlighten us.

www.grist.org

]]> I think there are efforts in the works ...

... to create a kind of open-source science journal. As I recall, our very own Andrew Dessler has written about this. Perhaps he'll drop by and enlighten us.

www.grist.org

]]> Comment #7 by jjwfmme http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:23:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/7 Dr. Pielke

So what does Roger do? Pielke is just trying to insulate himself against charges that he's little more than a contrarian whose blog functions as a chum line to lure in journalists.

That's actually kind of an interesting question. If you Google him, he comes up as a social scientist, a political scientist, and an atmospheric scientist. To me, these three disciplines are very different. There's a big, big difference between say, Max Weber and Max Planck. It's sometimes not clear in what capacity Dr. Pielke is speaking. Is he prescribing to us a scientific view, a political view, or what?

]]> Dr. Pielke

So what does Roger do? Pielke is just trying to insulate himself against charges that he's little more than a contrarian whose blog functions as a chum line to lure in journalists.

That's actually kind of an interesting question. If you Google him, he comes up as a social scientist, a political scientist, and an atmospheric scientist. To me, these three disciplines are very different. There's a big, big difference between say, Max Weber and Max Planck. It's sometimes not clear in what capacity Dr. Pielke is speaking. Is he prescribing to us a scientific view, a political view, or what?

]]> Comment #8 by Steve Bloom http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:21:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/8 Pielkes

Max Headroom is a bit more like it.

Actually there are two RPs:  Jr. is the political scientist referred to in the post, and Sr. is the atmosphere scientist.  Each in his own unique way drives people nuts.  Jr. does have some arguable expertise in the public policy aspects of hurricanes, but he spends considerable time trying to insinuate himself into a leading role in the scientific debate.  He is of course not qualified to shine the shoes of someone like Tom Wigley.

]]> Pielkes

Max Headroom is a bit more like it.

Actually there are two RPs:  Jr. is the political scientist referred to in the post, and Sr. is the atmosphere scientist.  Each in his own unique way drives people nuts.  Jr. does have some arguable expertise in the public policy aspects of hurricanes, but he spends considerable time trying to insinuate himself into a leading role in the scientific debate.  He is of course not qualified to shine the shoes of someone like Tom Wigley.

]]> Comment #9 by markbahner http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:55:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/9 Re: "beyond the state of the science"

Dr. Wigley apparently writes, "markbahner said that the probability of warming less than 1.4C was 50% and the probability of warming greater than 5C was zero."

That's close, but my exact words were, "The simple fact is that there is approximately a 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 deg C...and there is virtually no chance (far less than 1 percent) that the warming will be over 5 deg C."

Dr. Wigley continues, regarding the "projections" in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), "IPCC did not assign a probability to the 1.4-5.8C range. It was recognized that to so may have been useful, but it was beyond the state of the science (insofar as IPCC can only review the science, not do new science)."

That extraordinary comment provides compelling evidence of the deep scientific pathology of the current state of climate "science."  I've personally developed two sets of my own probabilistic predictions for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases. The second set is here:

My predictions

My own probabilistic predictions were developed in my spare time, almost certainly with less than 100 hours of research, thought, and calculations, and only a pocket calculator. By 2001, when the IPCC published the TAR, there had obviously been two previous assessment reports, with more than a full decade having passed since the first assessment report was published in 1990. In that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of people were working full time on climate research.  Dr. Wigley is stating that the entire climate change community was unable to come up with probabilistic predictions in over a decade of research, including countless conferences (in some very nice locales) and a great many powerful computers running climate simulations.  I'm sorry, but if a simple set of probabilistic predictions for methane atmspheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases was beyond the IPCC and the climate change community after more than a full decade of research by hundreds or thousands of people, it's simply because the IPCC and climate change community aren't very interested in doing science.

Mark Bahner

]]> Re: "beyond the state of the science"

Dr. Wigley apparently writes, "markbahner said that the probability of warming less than 1.4C was 50% and the probability of warming greater than 5C was zero."

That's close, but my exact words were, "The simple fact is that there is approximately a 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 deg C...and there is virtually no chance (far less than 1 percent) that the warming will be over 5 deg C."

Dr. Wigley continues, regarding the "projections" in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), "IPCC did not assign a probability to the 1.4-5.8C range. It was recognized that to so may have been useful, but it was beyond the state of the science (insofar as IPCC can only review the science, not do new science)."

That extraordinary comment provides compelling evidence of the deep scientific pathology of the current state of climate "science."  I've personally developed two sets of my own probabilistic predictions for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases. The second set is here:

My predictions

My own probabilistic predictions were developed in my spare time, almost certainly with less than 100 hours of research, thought, and calculations, and only a pocket calculator. By 2001, when the IPCC published the TAR, there had obviously been two previous assessment reports, with more than a full decade having passed since the first assessment report was published in 1990. In that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of people were working full time on climate research.  Dr. Wigley is stating that the entire climate change community was unable to come up with probabilistic predictions in over a decade of research, including countless conferences (in some very nice locales) and a great many powerful computers running climate simulations.  I'm sorry, but if a simple set of probabilistic predictions for methane atmspheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases was beyond the IPCC and the climate change community after more than a full decade of research by hundreds or thousands of people, it's simply because the IPCC and climate change community aren't very interested in doing science.

Mark Bahner

]]> Comment #10 by markbahner http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:57:49 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/10 WR predictions vs mine

Dr. Wigley continues, "So Sarah Raper and I did the appropriate probabilistic calculations...We found that there was a non-zero probability of warming less than 1.4C and a non-zero (but smaller) probability of warming above 5.8C. You can estimate the probabilities from the above-cited paper. We found the 90% C.I. to be 1.68C to 4.87C."

I commend Drs. Wigley and Raper (WR) for injecting a modest amount of science into the IPCC process for developing "projections" based on "scenarios." As he reports, the WR paper calculated a 5% probability of warming less than 1.68C, a 50% probability of warming less than 3.06C, and a 95% probability of warming less than 4.87C. Therefore, WR and I agree that the probabililty of warming of 5 deg C or more is very remote (with WR estimating the odds at more than 20 to 1, and me at more than 100 to 1).

The differences between their predictions and mine regard the probability of warming near 1.4 deg C and 3.1 deg C.  They estimate less than 5 percent chance of warming less than 1.4 deg C, whereas I estimate approximately a 50 percent chance of warming less than 1.4 deg C.  Also, they estimate approximately a 50 percent chance of warming more than 3.1 deg C, whereas I estimate the probability of warming more than 3.1 deg C at less than 5 percent.

How do these differences in predictions arise?  Well, the main reason for the differences is that Wigley and Raper assumed that all IPCC TAR scenarios had equal probability of occurrence, whereas I estimated that the most probable climate forcing for the 21st century would be somewhat less than the B1 scenario:

IPCC TAR scenarios and resultant temperature increases

So WR assume equal probability for all IPCC TAR scenarios.  Is this a scientifically valid assumption?  No, it is not.  This is not a close call.  Even a layperson can see that the assumption of equal probability is scientifically invalid.  James Hansen's Keeling Lecture compared various IPCC scenarios with actual increases in CO2 and methane:

James Hansen's Keeling Lecture, see pages 42-44

Increases since 1990 of both methane and CO2 have been at the very bottom of all IPCC TAR scenarios.  The WR assumption of equal probability for all scenarios is like assuming a straight-A student has equal probability of getting an A, B, C, D, or F in the next class he or she takes.

To summarize:  The IPCC TAR scenarios are completely invalid, as a matter of science.  The fact that the TAR had no probabilistic estimates is clear evidence of the pathology of the current state of climate "science."  The Wigley and Raper paper is a significant improvement on the IPCC TAR.  However, the WR assumption of equal probabilities for all scenarios is scientifically invalid.  If WR had used a "50 percent probability" forcing near or less than the B1 scenario, as would be appropriate, their calculated probability of warming of more than 3.1 deg C would be well below 50 percent, and their calculated probability of warming less than 1.4 deg C would be much higher than 5 percent.  Their calculations would produce results near mine, in fact.

Mark Bahner

]]> WR predictions vs mine

Dr. Wigley continues, "So Sarah Raper and I did the appropriate probabilistic calculations...We found that there was a non-zero probability of warming less than 1.4C and a non-zero (but smaller) probability of warming above 5.8C. You can estimate the probabilities from the above-cited paper. We found the 90% C.I. to be 1.68C to 4.87C."

I commend Drs. Wigley and Raper (WR) for injecting a modest amount of science into the IPCC process for developing "projections" based on "scenarios." As he reports, the WR paper calculated a 5% probability of warming less than 1.68C, a 50% probability of warming less than 3.06C, and a 95% probability of warming less than 4.87C. Therefore, WR and I agree that the probabililty of warming of 5 deg C or more is very remote (with WR estimating the odds at more than 20 to 1, and me at more than 100 to 1).

The differences between their predictions and mine regard the probability of warming near 1.4 deg C and 3.1 deg C.  They estimate less than 5 percent chance of warming less than 1.4 deg C, whereas I estimate approximately a 50 percent chance of warming less than 1.4 deg C.  Also, they estimate approximately a 50 percent chance of warming more than 3.1 deg C, whereas I estimate the probability of warming more than 3.1 deg C at less than 5 percent.

How do these differences in predictions arise?  Well, the main reason for the differences is that Wigley and Raper assumed that all IPCC TAR scenarios had equal probability of occurrence, whereas I estimated that the most probable climate forcing for the 21st century would be somewhat less than the B1 scenario:

IPCC TAR scenarios and resultant temperature increases

So WR assume equal probability for all IPCC TAR scenarios.  Is this a scientifically valid assumption?  No, it is not.  This is not a close call.  Even a layperson can see that the assumption of equal probability is scientifically invalid.  James Hansen's Keeling Lecture compared various IPCC scenarios with actual increases in CO2 and methane:

James Hansen's Keeling Lecture, see pages 42-44

Increases since 1990 of both methane and CO2 have been at the very bottom of all IPCC TAR scenarios.  The WR assumption of equal probability for all scenarios is like assuming a straight-A student has equal probability of getting an A, B, C, D, or F in the next class he or she takes.

To summarize:  The IPCC TAR scenarios are completely invalid, as a matter of science.  The fact that the TAR had no probabilistic estimates is clear evidence of the pathology of the current state of climate "science."  The Wigley and Raper paper is a significant improvement on the IPCC TAR.  However, the WR assumption of equal probabilities for all scenarios is scientifically invalid.  If WR had used a "50 percent probability" forcing near or less than the B1 scenario, as would be appropriate, their calculated probability of warming of more than 3.1 deg C would be well below 50 percent, and their calculated probability of warming less than 1.4 deg C would be much higher than 5 percent.  Their calculations would produce results near mine, in fact.

Mark Bahner

]]> Comment #11 by jjwfmme http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/ Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:48:32 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/tom-wigley-responds/11 Libertarian Sno-cone Makers' Convention, 2100 AD

Hey markbahner, we'll see you at the giant sno-cone maker's convention at the arctic circle in 2100. I'll be the one in the smoking jacket passing out the Cuban cigars...
Only, there's this little matter of the law of conservation of... oh, nevermind.

]]> Libertarian Sno-cone Makers' Convention, 2100 AD

Hey markbahner, we'll see you at the giant sno-cone maker's convention at the arctic circle in 2100. I'll be the one in the smoking jacket passing out the Cuban cigars...
Only, there's this little matter of the law of conservation of... oh, nevermind.

]]>