11 ms·

95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

111 points by Tycho 13y ago

cjensen 13y ago
Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars. In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.
- spindritf 13y ago
  In principle, ok, but you wouldn't be able to see anything if that graph also included error bars for 100 climate models.
  - coherentpony 13y ago
    You can't really see anything with 100 climate models without error bars. While your statement may be correct, the point is entirely moot.
  - swombat 13y ago
    The "article" relies entirely on this faulty graph, and then draws spurious conclusions... The graph by itself may be forgivable, but surrounded by this pattern of faulty thinking it is just one more piece of nonsense.
- retrogradeorbit 13y ago
  How do you measure the uncertainty in predictive models? From my physics I remember that measurements have uncertainty. And then you propagate the uncertainty into derived values with differential equations. But how do you ascertain the uncertainty in a computer model? Did the original graphs actually have error bars?
  - jkrems 13y ago
    Yes, see the debunk links in here. Those models normally all have ranges. Since he's in expert, it's a reasonable assumption that he either intentionally choose a graph without errors or he intentionally removed the error bars. Don't know which one would be worse.
- khawkins 13y ago
  It would be redundant to include error bars. Each path should be representing a random draw from the space of possible futures.
jbooth 13y ago
I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a meteor heading towards us on a collision course, would we reason against sending Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to stop it because it wasn't caused by us?
- TelmoMenezes 13y ago
  > No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doensn't matter. Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food, etc.), it is crucial to estimate their effectiveness.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    It doesn't matter in a moral sense. If someone proves that CO2 emissions don't cause global warming, then yeah, it makes it less effective to focus on CO2 emissions. But we still want to stop warming from happening, so we'd increase our efforts on whatever they pinpoint as the alternative cause. The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all, which I think is thoroughly bullshit, because I live here.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.
coherentpony 13y ago
95% of the climate models could also be wrong. Prior information could be wrong. Almost no atmosphere models resolve cloud cover properly. Making sweeping statements like this is not encouraged in the scientific community. Now, that's not say we can't learn something from this graph. But to learn more, detail is needed in how the graph was generated. There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm willing to be wrong, but I'd like to see all the facts first.
mariano54 13y ago
This is very interesting.. I'd like to hear more from experts in the field. I was never fully convinced that global warming was that bad. But then again I have always taken it for granted that we caused it, and that it has great effects on humans and animals.
- huxley 13y ago
  Here you go: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13
eagsalazar2 13y ago
This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good" As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy that itself is motivated by self serving right wingers who are exactly the people denying global warming. Pretending to care about the poor to make this point is frankly disgusting.
- baddox 13y ago
  You lost me. Where does the author make the claims that you appear to be disputing?
  - siriam 13y ago
    Does your ctrl+f not work? Both of those quotes were in the sixth paragraph.
    - baddox 13y ago
      The quotes don't make the claims that were being disputed.
  - huxley 13y ago
    Here are the two paragraphs in question: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats. I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or '97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming', neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good."
- MaysonL 13y ago
  How about cheap and prosperity-inducing energy policies? Like weatherproofing, energy efficiency appliance standards, energy efficiency building codes, fuel efficiency auto standards, etc., etc.?
nerfhammer 13y ago
More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climate_models_agree_the_observations_must/cfeqvjq http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-do...
- sabbatic13 13y ago
  Excellent links.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  "It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem." [1] Ban gym class! Ban exercise! [1] http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/06/time-for-action-on-global-warming.html http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/06/time-for-ac...
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Was there supposed to be a link there?
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      Yes, thanks. Still in the edit window.
- ovis 13y ago
  Another take on the graph, shown here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... It's been speculated on RealClimate that Roy Spencer is continuing to use the highest emission scenario for these comparisons, which is not made clear on his site.
simonw 13y ago
Background reading: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
nl 13y ago
Let's just link to the debunking and move on. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1... https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharpl... https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
- danellis 13y ago
  "International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP)" Clever.
- glenra 13y ago
  Why do you consider any of those links to constitute "debunking" of the original linked post? Most of the points therein seem entirely compatible with the current claim Most notably, the link on "climate models" says "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." and goes on to discuss hindcasting. But the argument here is about forecasting - how well the models did after predictions based on them were first published. How successfully do they turn out to reproduce temperatures since 2000? Not nearly as well as since 1900. Bringing up 1900 in this context seems like a red herring. Further note: There's a difference between disagreeing and debunking. It can be assumed that skepticalscience will disagree with this sort of sentiment, but that doesn't make them correct to do so.
chockablock 13y ago
Numerically illiterate horsepuckey. For example: If 100% of climate models predicted a rise of 10-14C (mean 12C), and we observed a rise of 11C, this doesn't mean that the models are 'wrong', and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that "the observations must be wrong." It does mean that there's some potentially interesting correlation in the models' errors, I guess. [Or, as cjensen said: 'Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars']
llamataboot 13y ago
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525 http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-mi...
j1z0 13y ago
To anybody reading this article, While Dr. Spencer does have real credentials, he is a know denier. I'm not saying that makes him necessarily wrong, but he is extremely biased in his views, and often publish research to back up those biased views. So I think he's comments should be taken with a grain of salt.
- lotyrin 13y ago
  Indeed, had to look at the author after the poor emotionally charged writing made his biases immediately clear.
- corresation 13y ago
  Most people, once they've established a position, become incredibly "biased" in their views. Skeptical Science, which I mention because it is referenced some dozen times in here, is the sort of site that proselytizes to the converted. It has driven a stake in the ground demarcating its position, and everything has to be relative to that stake.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    The tell is the angry sarcasm, which releases chemicals of pleasure in the brains of the already-convinced, but turns off anyone else.
    - nerfhammer 13y ago
      I had been grasping for a word for this phenomenon for so long. Thank you.
  - freshhawk 13y ago
    True in the broadest sense I suppose. I'm personally fine with driving a stake into the ground at "the consensus opinion of scientific experts". That's a different type of bias than driving the stake into a specific conclusion because the other stake moves. Frequently. To be fair, I think this only because it agrees with my pro-reason bias.
grantlmiller 13y ago
I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful... http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie... The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions. Now that doesn't mean we should ignore it entirely. I'm generally of the mindset that problems aren't solved by "steady progress" rather by radical innovation that changes the game. To that point... it can be seen as a waste of time to enforce rules today that really won't make a difference tomorrow. Instead today's effort should be spent to enable the rapid innovation that when applied will actually make a significant difference tomorrow.
- danieltillett 13y ago
  The problem with doing net present value calculations on climate change is the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Sure it might make more sense from a NPV perspective to spend a given number of dollars on say improving the water treatment in poor countries rather than stopping GHG emissions, but only if we know the maximum cost of climate change. The problem becomes how do you do a NPV calculation on the possibility of a positive feedback warming event that causes the Earth to become uninhabitable. This is effectively an infinite cost event. Even if such a risk is small, no NPV calculation has any value.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    ...the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Never having taken place, thinking about such events would seem to challenge to both frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought.
    - TheEzEzz 13y ago
      A charitable interpretation of daniel's comment would assume "infinite" meant "very, very, very large", for example: the extinction of humanity. There have been similar events to the extinction of humanity (past mass extinctions), so there is every reason to assign non-zero probability to human extinction from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. There are actually a multitude of events that happen in this universe with non-zero probability (from both probability philosophy perspectives) that could eradicate humanity. Catastrophic climate change may very well be one of them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution
alayne 13y ago
Well he sure sounds like a crackpot.
donpdonp 13y ago
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
spikels 13y ago
The global warming issue is complex. If you are a skeptic about CO2 increases due to humans, warming since 1880 or the basic science of greenhouse gasses you are simply uninformed. However if you are not modestly skeptical of mult-decade forecasts of temperature, rainfall or cyclones you are simply naive. These are incredibly complex systems that are only partial understood.
danieltillett 13y ago
I don't know why the uncertainties of climate modelling is valid reason for inaction. When one of the possible outcomes of dumping trillions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere is global disaster, then the poorer our models the more we should be worried.
- markmassie 13y ago
  Exactly. There are two major questions: either the models are right or they are wrong, and either we successfully curb emissions on a very large scale (action) or we do not (inaction). This gives us four outcomes: 1. Models are Right + Action = huge spending on energy but we save the planet 2. Models are wrong + Action = huge spending on energy that otherwise would be spent on defense, etc. but we are left with a renewable energy infrastructure. 3. Models are wrong + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. 4. Models are right + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. Also, dramatic weather changes, widespread famine, etc. Does inaction make sense even if the models are wrong?
  - xrange 13y ago
    It is nice to see such innocence in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not we can manage to do anything about the problem, the fear people have is the vast amounts of power and wealth we are transferring to select groups of people based on political considerations, rather than market forces. Maybe we can select the perfect "leaders" to do this job justly. Prudence would dictate that you should imagine your political opposites coming into this position. So the worst case scenario is that we enrich a small minority, who are likely to stir up untold strife and suffering in wielding their unearned power. And we still don't solve the problems.
    - beatpanda 13y ago
      "the fear people have is the vast amounts of power and wealth we are transferring to select groups of people based on political considerations" Ah, yes, like we do now, with the oil companies.
guelo 13y ago
For a blink I thought I had read "posterity-destroying" and I nodded.
gamerdonkey 13y ago
The problem with this article is how the author frames the entire debate around this one measure of climate change, as though this is the only possible observation of climate change. The issue of human contribution to climate change is much more complicated than that. This is an interesting contribution to the discussion, but it shouldn't be the only piece of information we go from.
scythe 13y ago
So, in general, the failure of a specific prediction from x theory does not in general invalidate the theory, in this case because all of the failed models depend on other assumptions than anthropogenic global warming. This is not because of any limitation of AGW but because climate forecasting is hard and any attempt to predict the goddamn future is going to require a lot of assumptions about a lot of things that can't be predicted (chaps theory). That's okay, because AGW is not based on climate models in the first place, but on a first-principles understanding of radiative forcing and a very well-established "fossil record" of old temperatures. Repeat after me: AGW is not a climate model. Simply put, there is no precedent in the entire history of the planet Earth for overall heating as pronounced and rapid as the past 100 years of AGW. There are really only two possibilities: either humans are responsible for basically all of the heating, or there is a giant demon who is trying to stir-fry the human race. So if you think that the recent warming is not anthropogenic... find Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis, fast.
- cgriswald 13y ago
  No love for Ernie Hudson?
code_duck 13y ago
The problem is that the same things which are thought to cause global warming also cause significant pollution, the harm of which is not in question. Most people do not question whether smog and mercury in the air are problems, and the sourcing and processing of fossil fuels creates significant harmful pollution, too.
vacri 13y ago
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations. Because there's been such a powerful political reaction in favour of all the scientists talking about warming? To the casual observer, it really looks more like Business As Usual.
retrogradeorbit 13y ago
I'll just leave this here without comment for the open minded: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_compone...
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Might be more persuasive if Huntsville hadn't been relocated to Alaska. Climate change is enough of a challenge to civilization without adding violent tectonic drift.
pridkett 13y ago
Just apply a simple rule of thumb to this situation - if someone has a doctorate and insists in being referred to by "Dr." then they're probably not confident in what they're doing. Nearly every place that Roy Spencer is mentioned he is referred to as Dr. Roy Spencer. The one exception to this is "humorous" situations. For example, when writing trite complaint letters or on a frequent flier memberships.
al2o3cr 13y ago
Roy Spencer's ancestor, Easter Island 1720: "The graphs that show the number of sizable trees on the island going to zero in just a few years are OBVIOUSLY bullshit!"
singingfish 13y ago
Roy Spencer is a delusional f*c$wit. I don't say that lightly. I tried having long conversations with climate fake sceptics, and they are totally refractory to reality and its measurement.
- programmarchy 13y ago
  Very convincing ad homs.
- vixen99 13y ago
  To be taken seriously in future discussions you're best advised to change your user name.
jellicle 13y ago
I wish that climate-deniers and flat earthers were flagged off the front page of HN as fast as any discussion of sexism in the tech community is.
- theraccoundude 13y ago
  And I wish religious zealots would be banned in the comments section as well.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
I admit to being amused, in that he is implicitly buying into the assumption that there is a mathematical model (which can then be run through a computer) that can describe "how climate works" on Earth. As if there is some huge Excel spreadsheet in a supercomputer and the jerks just keep on putting in wrong numbers to scare us. There isn't, and there won't be for (my estimate) at least another century - we don't even understand the Gulf Stream well enough to accurately model and then predict its behavior, much less everything else, including atmospheric dust.
beloch 13y ago
Climate change models are based on data. Old data, but real data. The concept wouldn't have even occurred to us had real, physical phenomena not suggested it. The deviation of recent data from predictive models does not indicate that nothing is going on an everything is tickety-boo. It merely indicates we don't fully understand what's going on and our models still don't have much predictive power. So, if we don't fully understand what's going on, what do we do? Nothing? That's idiotic. It's utter paralysis. Would you invest in a tech company that refuses to do anything unless it fully understands the outcome? Sadly, human existence is lived in a perpetual state of trial and error. What we can do is weigh the consequences our actions could have based on our current, best understanding of the situation and then make the best choice we can. Climate change might not fit our models, but our limited understanding of what's going on indicates there could be dire consequences if we do nothing. Action always has a cost, however. If indeed efforts against climate change have caused poor people to starve (evidence please!), how do we weigh this against massive famines that may occur in the future because of climate change? Dr. Spencer is jumping to conclusions far more spurious and unsupported than any of the climate scientists he derides. We would do well do ignore him. As such, I am flagging this article. If this is an abuse of the flag feature, please let me know and I will unflag it.
- ramblerman 13y ago
  You can flag what you want, but I'm unconvinced by your arguments. You concede that he makes a point and we have no predicitive power when it comes to the climate. After that you don't really win me back.
  - shadowmint 13y ago
    http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
- waps 13y ago
marze 13y ago
Expected CO2 increases would modify the Earth's albedo by 0.4%. Clouds modify it by > 25%. We can't predict clouds more than five days in advance, under our well-studied present climate conditions. It is difficult to see why climate modelers are confident they can predict average cloud cover in the future when different climate conditions are in effect.
adam-f 13y ago
IANAS but it never made sense to me that global warming would be linear with amount of CO_2, at some point, I figured 95% of the available IR would be absorbed by the atmosphere and doubling the CO_2 would only get us to, like, 97.5%. Then again, we are experiencing some crazy weather patterns recently. Other effects of CO_2, like ocean acidification can be seen through both direct chemical measurement and by the observed environmental effects on coral reefs.
bnolsen 13y ago
Quick! someone get the wierdos at /. to post this article! As noted in the past, sciebtists can barely predict hurricane tracks. Global climate stuff? Yeah right.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
I would be much more open to taking climate change skeptics seriously if they didn't consistently descend into full on tinfoil-hat-speak. "starve more poor people to death for the greater good" Thank you for playing. No amount of "I'm a Ph.D., I'm a former NASA scientist" is going to help take you seriously after that.
dredmorbius 13y ago
SourceWatch profile on Roy C. Spencer: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer "One of the few AGW deniers with real credentials", Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (also home to AGW denier John Christy) and is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website.

111 points by Tycho 13y ago

Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars. In that respect, the error here belongs entirely to whoever made that graph in the first place. They plotted all those models together to try to convince the reader that all models point to doom. But in doing so without error bars, they implied a level of confidence for specific years that was entirely absent from the models.

spindritf 13y ago
In principle, ok, but you wouldn't be able to see anything if that graph also included error bars for 100 climate models.
- coherentpony 13y ago
  You can't really see anything with 100 climate models without error bars. While your statement may be correct, the point is entirely moot.
- swombat 13y ago
  The "article" relies entirely on this faulty graph, and then draws spurious conclusions... The graph by itself may be forgivable, but surrounded by this pattern of faulty thinking it is just one more piece of nonsense.
retrogradeorbit 13y ago
How do you measure the uncertainty in predictive models? From my physics I remember that measurements have uncertainty. And then you propagate the uncertainty into derived values with differential equations. But how do you ascertain the uncertainty in a computer model? Did the original graphs actually have error bars?
- jkrems 13y ago
  Yes, see the debunk links in here. Those models normally all have ranges. Since he's in expert, it's a reasonable assumption that he either intentionally choose a graph without errors or he intentionally removed the error bars. Don't know which one would be worse.
khawkins 13y ago
It would be redundant to include error bars. Each path should be representing a random draw from the space of possible futures.

jbooth 13y ago

I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a meteor heading towards us on a collision course, would we reason against sending Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to stop it because it wasn't caused by us?

TelmoMenezes 13y ago
> No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doensn't matter. Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food, etc.), it is crucial to estimate their effectiveness.
- jbooth 13y ago
  It doesn't matter in a moral sense. If someone proves that CO2 emissions don't cause global warming, then yeah, it makes it less effective to focus on CO2 emissions. But we still want to stop warming from happening, so we'd increase our efforts on whatever they pinpoint as the alternative cause. The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all, which I think is thoroughly bullshit, because I live here.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.

coherentpony 13y ago

95% of the climate models could also be wrong. Prior information could be wrong. Almost no atmosphere models resolve cloud cover properly. Making sweeping statements like this is not encouraged in the scientific community. Now, that's not say we can't learn something from this graph. But to learn more, detail is needed in how the graph was generated. There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm willing to be wrong, but I'd like to see all the facts first.

mariano54 13y ago

This is very interesting.. I'd like to hear more from experts in the field. I was never fully convinced that global warming was that bad. But then again I have always taken it for granted that we caused it, and that it has great effects on humans and animals.

huxley 13y ago
Here you go: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

eagsalazar2 13y ago

This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good" As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy that itself is motivated by self serving right wingers who are exactly the people denying global warming. Pretending to care about the poor to make this point is frankly disgusting.

baddox 13y ago
You lost me. Where does the author make the claims that you appear to be disputing?
- siriam 13y ago
  Does your ctrl+f not work? Both of those quotes were in the sixth paragraph.
  - baddox 13y ago
    The quotes don't make the claims that were being disputed.
- huxley 13y ago
  Here are the two paragraphs in question: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats. I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or '97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming', neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good."
MaysonL 13y ago
How about cheap and prosperity-inducing energy policies? Like weatherproofing, energy efficiency appliance standards, energy efficiency building codes, fuel efficiency auto standards, etc., etc.?

nerfhammer 13y ago

More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climate_models_agree_the_observations_must/cfeqvjq http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-do...

sabbatic13 13y ago
Excellent links.
Jtsummers 13y ago
"It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem." [1] Ban gym class! Ban exercise! [1] http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/06/time-for-action-on-global-warming.html http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/06/time-for-ac...
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Was there supposed to be a link there?
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    Yes, thanks. Still in the edit window.
ovis 13y ago
Another take on the graph, shown here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... It's been speculated on RealClimate that Roy Spencer is continuing to use the highest emission scenario for these comparisons, which is not made clear on his site.

simonw 13y ago

Background reading: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

nl 13y ago

Let's just link to the debunking and move on. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1... https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharpl... https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

danellis 13y ago
"International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP)" Clever.
glenra 13y ago
Why do you consider any of those links to constitute "debunking" of the original linked post? Most of the points therein seem entirely compatible with the current claim Most notably, the link on "climate models" says "Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." and goes on to discuss hindcasting. But the argument here is about forecasting - how well the models did after predictions based on them were first published. How successfully do they turn out to reproduce temperatures since 2000? Not nearly as well as since 1900. Bringing up 1900 in this context seems like a red herring. Further note: There's a difference between disagreeing and debunking. It can be assumed that skepticalscience will disagree with this sort of sentiment, but that doesn't make them correct to do so.

chockablock 13y ago

Numerically illiterate horsepuckey. For example: If 100% of climate models predicted a rise of 10-14C (mean 12C), and we observed a rise of 11C, this doesn't mean that the models are 'wrong', and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that "the observations must be wrong." It does mean that there's some potentially interesting correlation in the models' errors, I guess. [Or, as cjensen said: 'Thou shalt not make a graph without error bars']

llamataboot 13y ago

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525 http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-mi...

j1z0 13y ago

To anybody reading this article, While Dr. Spencer does have real credentials, he is a know denier. I'm not saying that makes him necessarily wrong, but he is extremely biased in his views, and often publish research to back up those biased views. So I think he's comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

lotyrin 13y ago
Indeed, had to look at the author after the poor emotionally charged writing made his biases immediately clear.
corresation 13y ago
Most people, once they've established a position, become incredibly "biased" in their views. Skeptical Science, which I mention because it is referenced some dozen times in here, is the sort of site that proselytizes to the converted. It has driven a stake in the ground demarcating its position, and everything has to be relative to that stake.
- gruseom 13y ago
  The tell is the angry sarcasm, which releases chemicals of pleasure in the brains of the already-convinced, but turns off anyone else.
  - nerfhammer 13y ago
    I had been grasping for a word for this phenomenon for so long. Thank you.
- freshhawk 13y ago
  True in the broadest sense I suppose. I'm personally fine with driving a stake into the ground at "the consensus opinion of scientific experts". That's a different type of bias than driving the stake into a specific conclusion because the other stake moves. Frequently. To be fair, I think this only because it agrees with my pro-reason bias.

grantlmiller 13y ago

I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful... http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie... The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions. Now that doesn't mean we should ignore it entirely. I'm generally of the mindset that problems aren't solved by "steady progress" rather by radical innovation that changes the game. To that point... it can be seen as a waste of time to enforce rules today that really won't make a difference tomorrow. Instead today's effort should be spent to enable the rapid innovation that when applied will actually make a significant difference tomorrow.

danieltillett 13y ago
The problem with doing net present value calculations on climate change is the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Sure it might make more sense from a NPV perspective to spend a given number of dollars on say improving the water treatment in poor countries rather than stopping GHG emissions, but only if we know the maximum cost of climate change. The problem becomes how do you do a NPV calculation on the possibility of a positive feedback warming event that causes the Earth to become uninhabitable. This is effectively an infinite cost event. Even if such a risk is small, no NPV calculation has any value.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...the possibility of "infinite" cost events. Never having taken place, thinking about such events would seem to challenge to both frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought.
  - TheEzEzz 13y ago
    A charitable interpretation of daniel's comment would assume "infinite" meant "very, very, very large", for example: the extinction of humanity. There have been similar events to the extinction of humanity (past mass extinctions), so there is every reason to assign non-zero probability to human extinction from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. There are actually a multitude of events that happen in this universe with non-zero probability (from both probability philosophy perspectives) that could eradicate humanity. Catastrophic climate change may very well be one of them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

alayne 13y ago

Well he sure sounds like a crackpot.

donpdonp 13y ago

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

spikels 13y ago

The global warming issue is complex. If you are a skeptic about CO2 increases due to humans, warming since 1880 or the basic science of greenhouse gasses you are simply uninformed. However if you are not modestly skeptical of mult-decade forecasts of temperature, rainfall or cyclones you are simply naive. These are incredibly complex systems that are only partial understood.

danieltillett 13y ago

I don't know why the uncertainties of climate modelling is valid reason for inaction. When one of the possible outcomes of dumping trillions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere is global disaster, then the poorer our models the more we should be worried.

markmassie 13y ago
Exactly. There are two major questions: either the models are right or they are wrong, and either we successfully curb emissions on a very large scale (action) or we do not (inaction). This gives us four outcomes: 1. Models are Right + Action = huge spending on energy but we save the planet 2. Models are wrong + Action = huge spending on energy that otherwise would be spent on defense, etc. but we are left with a renewable energy infrastructure. 3. Models are wrong + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. 4. Models are right + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. Also, dramatic weather changes, widespread famine, etc. Does inaction make sense even if the models are wrong?
- xrange 13y ago
  It is nice to see such innocence in this day and age. Regardless of whether or not we can manage to do anything about the problem, the fear people have is the vast amounts of power and wealth we are transferring to select groups of people based on political considerations, rather than market forces. Maybe we can select the perfect "leaders" to do this job justly. Prudence would dictate that you should imagine your political opposites coming into this position. So the worst case scenario is that we enrich a small minority, who are likely to stir up untold strife and suffering in wielding their unearned power. And we still don't solve the problems.
  - beatpanda 13y ago
    "the fear people have is the vast amounts of power and wealth we are transferring to select groups of people based on political considerations" Ah, yes, like we do now, with the oil companies.

guelo 13y ago

For a blink I thought I had read "posterity-destroying" and I nodded.

gamerdonkey 13y ago

The problem with this article is how the author frames the entire debate around this one measure of climate change, as though this is the only possible observation of climate change. The issue of human contribution to climate change is much more complicated than that. This is an interesting contribution to the discussion, but it shouldn't be the only piece of information we go from.

scythe 13y ago

So, in general, the failure of a specific prediction from x theory does not in general invalidate the theory, in this case because all of the failed models depend on other assumptions than anthropogenic global warming. This is not because of any limitation of AGW but because climate forecasting is hard and any attempt to predict the goddamn future is going to require a lot of assumptions about a lot of things that can't be predicted (chaps theory). That's okay, because AGW is not based on climate models in the first place, but on a first-principles understanding of radiative forcing and a very well-established "fossil record" of old temperatures. Repeat after me: AGW is not a climate model. Simply put, there is no precedent in the entire history of the planet Earth for overall heating as pronounced and rapid as the past 100 years of AGW. There are really only two possibilities: either humans are responsible for basically all of the heating, or there is a giant demon who is trying to stir-fry the human race. So if you think that the recent warming is not anthropogenic... find Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis, fast.

cgriswald 13y ago
No love for Ernie Hudson?

code_duck 13y ago

The problem is that the same things which are thought to cause global warming also cause significant pollution, the harm of which is not in question. Most people do not question whether smog and mercury in the air are problems, and the sourcing and processing of fossil fuels creates significant harmful pollution, too.

vacri 13y ago

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations. Because there's been such a powerful political reaction in favour of all the scientists talking about warming? To the casual observer, it really looks more like Business As Usual.

retrogradeorbit 13y ago

I'll just leave this here without comment for the open minded: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_compone...

dredmorbius 13y ago
Might be more persuasive if Huntsville hadn't been relocated to Alaska. Climate change is enough of a challenge to civilization without adding violent tectonic drift.

pridkett 13y ago

Just apply a simple rule of thumb to this situation - if someone has a doctorate and insists in being referred to by "Dr." then they're probably not confident in what they're doing. Nearly every place that Roy Spencer is mentioned he is referred to as Dr. Roy Spencer. The one exception to this is "humorous" situations. For example, when writing trite complaint letters or on a frequent flier memberships.

al2o3cr 13y ago

Roy Spencer's ancestor, Easter Island 1720: "The graphs that show the number of sizable trees on the island going to zero in just a few years are OBVIOUSLY bullshit!"

singingfish 13y ago

Roy Spencer is a delusional f*c$wit. I don't say that lightly. I tried having long conversations with climate fake sceptics, and they are totally refractory to reality and its measurement.

programmarchy 13y ago
Very convincing ad homs.
vixen99 13y ago
To be taken seriously in future discussions you're best advised to change your user name.

jellicle 13y ago

I wish that climate-deniers and flat earthers were flagged off the front page of HN as fast as any discussion of sexism in the tech community is.

theraccoundude 13y ago
And I wish religious zealots would be banned in the comments section as well.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

I admit to being amused, in that he is implicitly buying into the assumption that there is a mathematical model (which can then be run through a computer) that can describe "how climate works" on Earth. As if there is some huge Excel spreadsheet in a supercomputer and the jerks just keep on putting in wrong numbers to scare us. There isn't, and there won't be for (my estimate) at least another century - we don't even understand the Gulf Stream well enough to accurately model and then predict its behavior, much less everything else, including atmospheric dust.

beloch 13y ago

Climate change models are based on data. Old data, but real data. The concept wouldn't have even occurred to us had real, physical phenomena not suggested it. The deviation of recent data from predictive models does not indicate that nothing is going on an everything is tickety-boo. It merely indicates we don't fully understand what's going on and our models still don't have much predictive power. So, if we don't fully understand what's going on, what do we do? Nothing? That's idiotic. It's utter paralysis. Would you invest in a tech company that refuses to do anything unless it fully understands the outcome? Sadly, human existence is lived in a perpetual state of trial and error. What we can do is weigh the consequences our actions could have based on our current, best understanding of the situation and then make the best choice we can. Climate change might not fit our models, but our limited understanding of what's going on indicates there could be dire consequences if we do nothing. Action always has a cost, however. If indeed efforts against climate change have caused poor people to starve (evidence please!), how do we weigh this against massive famines that may occur in the future because of climate change? Dr. Spencer is jumping to conclusions far more spurious and unsupported than any of the climate scientists he derides. We would do well do ignore him. As such, I am flagging this article. If this is an abuse of the flag feature, please let me know and I will unflag it.

ramblerman 13y ago
You can flag what you want, but I'm unconvinced by your arguments. You concede that he makes a point and we have no predicitive power when it comes to the climate. After that you don't really win me back.
- shadowmint 13y ago
  http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
waps 13y ago

marze 13y ago

Expected CO2 increases would modify the Earth's albedo by 0.4%. Clouds modify it by > 25%. We can't predict clouds more than five days in advance, under our well-studied present climate conditions. It is difficult to see why climate modelers are confident they can predict average cloud cover in the future when different climate conditions are in effect.

adam-f 13y ago

IANAS but it never made sense to me that global warming would be linear with amount of CO_2, at some point, I figured 95% of the available IR would be absorbed by the atmosphere and doubling the CO_2 would only get us to, like, 97.5%. Then again, we are experiencing some crazy weather patterns recently. Other effects of CO_2, like ocean acidification can be seen through both direct chemical measurement and by the observed environmental effects on coral reefs.

bnolsen 13y ago

Quick! someone get the wierdos at /. to post this article! As noted in the past, sciebtists can barely predict hurricane tracks. Global climate stuff? Yeah right.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

I would be much more open to taking climate change skeptics seriously if they didn't consistently descend into full on tinfoil-hat-speak. "starve more poor people to death for the greater good" Thank you for playing. No amount of "I'm a Ph.D., I'm a former NASA scientist" is going to help take you seriously after that.

dredmorbius 13y ago

SourceWatch profile on Roy C. Spencer: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer "One of the few AGW deniers with real credentials", Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (also home to AGW denier John Christy) and is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website.