Dear Roger, I have difficulty understanding your ‘lesson’. You write: “Lesson: Just because the signal of climate change for particular variables cannot (yet) be detected in the context of historical variability does not mean that climate change is not real or important, and in many if not most cases a lack of signal is to be expected.”
* I would think that ‘if and when climate change is real’, then the criteria for detection have been met. And, hence, a signal is detected. So my first problem with this ‘lesson’ is that it appears to be circular. My second question is about the second part / sentence: why would the absence of the likelihood of a signal matter? To repeat my first problem: if there is no signal, the is no detection and, therefore climate change is not real.
* A related problem is that climate change’ as a catch all concept appears to be unhelpful. As you illustrate with the very telling Table 12.12, there are many weather phenomena and most of them are likely not to show a climate change signal for the foreseeable future. To then speak about climate change as real negates this fact. This, then, implies that all there is to climate change is global warming and increased precipitation. Would that not classify as misinformation of the kind you are so consistently and bravely combatting?
* I was not able to find the IPCC criteria for detection. Therefor I do not understand why even the +2 shift would not satisfy those criteria.
Personal note: I do appreciate the shift from ’real and serious’ to ‘real and important’.
Regarding Table 12.12, note the scenario being used is RCP8.5 (the implausible one), so detection of events in RCP4.5 (the one closest to our current emission trajectory) might take even longer. Also, if I recall correctly, the IPCC's definition of "medium confidence" (light blue) is 50:50 - a coin toss.
This looks to me like the science is not "settled" yet the science police are very willing to silence & censor despite the uncertainty. They are wedded to the catastrophe meme and will tolerate no dissent.
[btw I just read J Curry's book on Climate Uncertainty & Risk; its well worth reading, and RP, Jr is referenced several times.]
I applaud your efforts to bring sanity to the discussion of climate change.
what is neve discussed is the question of causation.
Assumed is a physics question. Can a doubling of atmospheric CO2 cause a significant increase in the absorption of earth's IR radiation in the only effective wave band, 14-16microns.
You are probably not aware of the NASA study in 1992 of the transmission of Earth's radiation to space. Not your fault, it was buried by a nefarious NASA employee in 1992 and only partially released to the NASA IR Astronomy program Gemini. As of 2023, it is now available to all at "NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E. Further discussed in "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" Available on Kindle for 99c, or free if you give me an email to send a pdf to.
This shows that zero energy in the 14-16 micron range escapes to space. Thus, mor e CO2 can have no effect.
We should shift our efforts to find the real cause.
Aug 17, 2023·edited Aug 17, 2023Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger, maybe you can explain. In your figure 1 I see how moving the temperature shifts the entire curve toward higher temperatures. How does it work then, when scientists attribute extreme cold to climate change? Is there some more complicated processes going on (or hypothesized to be going on)? I lose track of the mechanics of some of these claims. I know that models are complicated, nonlinear, and all that but still...
The challenge, I think, is Climate Activists think in terms of certainties and much of the science is anything but certain. Too, the science itself can be pretty opaque to the lay person and it's so much easier to understand the idea of civilization's end. It's also very profitable to exploit such an idea.
It occurs to me that your point about the challenge of distinguishing an imposed signal from random noise could be made simply by comparing the uncertainties of the slopes of the regression lines.
The elephant in the room is the magnitude of natural climate change, that is the climate change not caused by human generated CO2. Otherwise known as the climate change humans can do nothing about. It has become fairly clear to me, at least, that the magnitude of natural climate change is at least as high as the human caused climate change, quite possibly much larger. And this is the reason that the IPCC and others have such trouble identifying the signal of climate change caused by CO2. The natural consequence of that observation is that humans attempting to stop the use of fossil fuel in order to stop 'climate change' becomes an exercise in futility. I also think it is clear that much of the climate change community has realized this, and that is the reason that they have become more and more strident. They are desperate to claim relevancy in a discussion in which human caused climate change is just not significant.
Wish some one could figure out a way to change the narrative? If media refuses to present the facts even when they disagree with the narrative we are lost.
Roger thank you for another well written and even tempered essay. Yet as you point out the climate bullies seem to have the upper hand in the media. The whole topic of climate change has become politicized beyond any hope of redemption in my opinion.
"Advocates who promote every extreme event as being caused by — linked to, made worse by, fueled by — climate change are promoting misinformation in almost all cases. It is an expression of faith not science. This complicates public discussions of detection and attribution. Some people are expressing a deeply-held, religious-like sentiment and others are talking about data and evidence. No wonder people talk past each other"
That isn't the bad part - the bad part is when those advocates insist on imposing their religion on others - and getting away with it! We are supposed to be living in a country where freedom of religion is baked into the Constitution, but all of a sudden The Church of Climate Change has become the national religion and woe be upon anyone who questions its tenets.
Dear Roger, I have difficulty understanding your ‘lesson’. You write: “Lesson: Just because the signal of climate change for particular variables cannot (yet) be detected in the context of historical variability does not mean that climate change is not real or important, and in many if not most cases a lack of signal is to be expected.”
* I would think that ‘if and when climate change is real’, then the criteria for detection have been met. And, hence, a signal is detected. So my first problem with this ‘lesson’ is that it appears to be circular. My second question is about the second part / sentence: why would the absence of the likelihood of a signal matter? To repeat my first problem: if there is no signal, the is no detection and, therefore climate change is not real.
* A related problem is that climate change’ as a catch all concept appears to be unhelpful. As you illustrate with the very telling Table 12.12, there are many weather phenomena and most of them are likely not to show a climate change signal for the foreseeable future. To then speak about climate change as real negates this fact. This, then, implies that all there is to climate change is global warming and increased precipitation. Would that not classify as misinformation of the kind you are so consistently and bravely combatting?
* I was not able to find the IPCC criteria for detection. Therefor I do not understand why even the +2 shift would not satisfy those criteria.
Personal note: I do appreciate the shift from ’real and serious’ to ‘real and important’.
Regarding Table 12.12, note the scenario being used is RCP8.5 (the implausible one), so detection of events in RCP4.5 (the one closest to our current emission trajectory) might take even longer. Also, if I recall correctly, the IPCC's definition of "medium confidence" (light blue) is 50:50 - a coin toss.
This looks to me like the science is not "settled" yet the science police are very willing to silence & censor despite the uncertainty. They are wedded to the catastrophe meme and will tolerate no dissent.
[btw I just read J Curry's book on Climate Uncertainty & Risk; its well worth reading, and RP, Jr is referenced several times.]
Roger, how do you respond the ‘tipping points’ argument? It’s like the all-purpose trump card for climate alarm.
I applaud your efforts to bring sanity to the discussion of climate change.
what is neve discussed is the question of causation.
Assumed is a physics question. Can a doubling of atmospheric CO2 cause a significant increase in the absorption of earth's IR radiation in the only effective wave band, 14-16microns.
You are probably not aware of the NASA study in 1992 of the transmission of Earth's radiation to space. Not your fault, it was buried by a nefarious NASA employee in 1992 and only partially released to the NASA IR Astronomy program Gemini. As of 2023, it is now available to all at "NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E. Further discussed in "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" Available on Kindle for 99c, or free if you give me an email to send a pdf to.
This shows that zero energy in the 14-16 micron range escapes to space. Thus, mor e CO2 can have no effect.
We should shift our efforts to find the real cause.
Thought you might appreciate this https://rootsofprogress.org/what-does-it-mean-to-trust-science?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Roger, maybe you can explain. In your figure 1 I see how moving the temperature shifts the entire curve toward higher temperatures. How does it work then, when scientists attribute extreme cold to climate change? Is there some more complicated processes going on (or hypothesized to be going on)? I lose track of the mechanics of some of these claims. I know that models are complicated, nonlinear, and all that but still...
The challenge, I think, is Climate Activists think in terms of certainties and much of the science is anything but certain. Too, the science itself can be pretty opaque to the lay person and it's so much easier to understand the idea of civilization's end. It's also very profitable to exploit such an idea.
It occurs to me that your point about the challenge of distinguishing an imposed signal from random noise could be made simply by comparing the uncertainties of the slopes of the regression lines.
The elephant in the room is the magnitude of natural climate change, that is the climate change not caused by human generated CO2. Otherwise known as the climate change humans can do nothing about. It has become fairly clear to me, at least, that the magnitude of natural climate change is at least as high as the human caused climate change, quite possibly much larger. And this is the reason that the IPCC and others have such trouble identifying the signal of climate change caused by CO2. The natural consequence of that observation is that humans attempting to stop the use of fossil fuel in order to stop 'climate change' becomes an exercise in futility. I also think it is clear that much of the climate change community has realized this, and that is the reason that they have become more and more strident. They are desperate to claim relevancy in a discussion in which human caused climate change is just not significant.
Wish some one could figure out a way to change the narrative? If media refuses to present the facts even when they disagree with the narrative we are lost.
Roger thank you for another well written and even tempered essay. Yet as you point out the climate bullies seem to have the upper hand in the media. The whole topic of climate change has become politicized beyond any hope of redemption in my opinion.
You are probably nicer to the "climate cultists" than they deserve.
PS. This post is much more like what we expect from you - "the facts, ma'am; just the facts" presented well.
Roger - another nice paper - thanks!
"Advocates who promote every extreme event as being caused by — linked to, made worse by, fueled by — climate change are promoting misinformation in almost all cases. It is an expression of faith not science. This complicates public discussions of detection and attribution. Some people are expressing a deeply-held, religious-like sentiment and others are talking about data and evidence. No wonder people talk past each other"
That isn't the bad part - the bad part is when those advocates insist on imposing their religion on others - and getting away with it! We are supposed to be living in a country where freedom of religion is baked into the Constitution, but all of a sudden The Church of Climate Change has become the national religion and woe be upon anyone who questions its tenets.