Share this comment
I have been around a long time. Got my Ph. D. from Berkeley in 1959. I am still active (co-investigator on "MOXIE now converting CO2 to O2 on Mars). Over the years, I've seen a cultural change in the way scientists present and portray their work. We used to be somewhat humble and proposed findings tentatively, subject to confirmation. In…
I have been around a long time. Got my Ph. D. from Berkeley in 1959. I am still active (co-investigator on "MOXIE now converting CO2 to O2 on Mars). Over the years, I've seen a cultural change in the way scientists present and portray their work. We used to be somewhat humble and proposed findings tentatively, subject to confirmation. In the last few decades the culture has swung toward arrogance. Scientists working on sparse data and flimsy models make assertive predictions for the future that are simply incredible. A substantial fraction of published research is bogus.
Here's an example: Dominik Schumacher, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a university in Switzerland, recently published a paper in which he asserted (among many other things): "Floods and droughts are made 20 times more likely by climate change", "will repeat every 20 years", and "With an additional 1.44 degrees of warming, this type of drought will happen once every 10 years in western central Europe and every year throughout the Northern Hemisphere". Note the two significant figures in the temperature. I am not here to argue whether his assertions are correct or not. I claim that there is by far, not enough data, not enough veracity in models, and not enough predictive power in any conceivable analysis, to warrant such narrow, specific detailed conclusions. These assertions must be dismissed out of hand because he can't possibly know how to make such predictions.
Comparing the present to the past can also be a minefield because so many of the key factors have changed, data is usually flaky and sparse, and motivated people seem to cherry pick from what little there is.
The thing that is missing in almost all climate studies is humility. This paper has some humility: "How the climate of the twenty first century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate will present us." However, it is not yet clear whether we should "remove the burden of being in a climate emergency" – a clear implication by the authors that they think claims by climate alarmists are bogus.
Climate alarmists, in their enthusiasm to save the planet from perceived danger, have exaggerated the imperative to cut emissions using various falsifications, misrepresentations and biased analysis and reporting. One well-documented case is the analysis of global temperatures over the past 2000 years resulting in the "hockey stick". Montford's book (and mine as well) goes to great extent to expose the fakery. Another is the subject of this publication: repeated claims we read every day that each new flood, drought, wind, temperature or storm is due to carbon dioxide. An honest evaluation of the inadequate data that we have suggests that if the alarmists are ultimately right, they have jumped the gun, and present evidence compared to the past does not support the belief that we are already in the midst of the alarmist future.
The whole ordeal reminds me the experience of Kenneth Arrow (Nobel in Economics) when he was tasked to predict the weather for the US Air Force .
The story goes like this:
“ Military service during World War 2 found him working as a statistician in the US Army Air Corp’s Weather Division and charged with forecasting the number of rainy days in particular combat areas.
A simple statistical test showed that his efforts were fruitless, so Arrow wrote to his general suggesting his unit be disbanded. He received a reply:
“The general is well aware that your forecasts are no good. However, they are required for planning purposes.”
If Arrow hadn’t already grasped the way the world works, he did then.
In my opinion this is exactly what current climate science is all about. It gets funded that much to find “problems” for planning purposes.
You'll enjoy this op-ed of mine in the FT https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1401940374470291458?s=20&t=upq1ujJnPyu-K4VVqhkbng
Thank you Dr. Rapp. Very much appreciate that perspective. We often face a similar problem with stream gage and groundwater level data when modeling surface-groundwater interactions. Just because one CAN report 5 sig. figs. (well beyond the accuracy and precision of the fundamental measured data, especially if it dates back to the earliest days of the measurement technology), doesn’t mean you SHOULD in your reporting or publication of simulation results, let alone make iron-clad decisions on their basis.