AGW question for Citizen Runner

...anyone?

Let me elaborate. In late 2014, I made the following naïve prediction:

http://i68.tinypic.com/3534g7s.jpg

This looks like this close up with more detail (i.e., showing monthly anomaly data in addition to annual):

http://i68.tinypic.com/axcz1f.jpg

I wrote the following at that time:

"My naive predictions from all this are the following, in descending order of confidence:

- this time next year, the 12-month trailing average anomaly (from HACRUT4 (NH+SH)/2) will be 0.1-0.15C lower than it is this month

- over the next 10-20 years, the 12-month trailing average anomaly will stay within a band between 0.4-0.7 above the 1960-1990 baseline average

- by 2100, the 12-month trailing average global anomaly will be about 1.5-2.0C above 19660-1990 baseline values

That will be $0.02, thanks!"

I was wrong on the first point (global temperatures rose quickly for the next whole year like a runaway train, hitting the "all time high." On the second point, the global anomaly (average annual value) has reverted back to my "best fit projection," and is following (currently) the track for what IPCC projected in 2007 (AR4 report) if the world met its commitments at that time:

[IMG]

http://i63.tinypic.com/n50d2f.jpg[/IMG

]

The point being that observed temperature anomaly plots well below the projections (from 2007) for what was expected in the absence of significant efforts to reverse climate change (which commitments have not been made, to the best of my knowledge), in spite of lack of effort.

This shows that either climate systems are slow to respond to anthropogenic change (or conversely wander slowly and widely in the absence of anthropogenic change), or that they are just weakly correlated with human influence, or that they are very little (if at all) influenced by human influence. Those are all shades of grey around the same statement, but it seems inescapable to me to conclude that, at best, human efforts, positive or negative, have / will have a lagged response or no response.

And hence, my urgent question: if we try a bunch of things to reverse climate change, and they don't work, what then?

I think this is a critical question no matter one's position, since there remains some chance global temperatures continue to wander upwards (with some or all of the expected negative outcomes), and therefore one needs a contingency plan in order to render society robust against such changes.

[quote] the shill said: Let's imagine an ideal world in which everyone (all countries) jumps on board to reduce emissions...

I've been "imagining," that ideal world for around ten years, and it isn't happening.

under the guise of "global warming," my government banned the production of 60watt light bulbs, so old ladies now have to buy 100w light bulbs to put in their hall because it's illegal to buy the bulbs that do the job properly.

meanwhile, formula 1 motor racing is a thing. guys sit in very expensive cars and drive round and round in circles for three hours burning fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow. which, very soon, there won't be.

I suspect that we are past the point of no return, the tipping point, whatever you want to call it, the point where doing something might make a difference. right now, if we eliminated half the world's population and all went to live in caves there might be some form of life left on Earth a thousand years from now. otherwise, life as we know it is over. humanoids are toast.

cheers.

BTW, the late 2014 "prediction" is here, in case anyone thinks I'm making this up:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6224868&page=2

So, track record on the "prediction" so far...

- for the first year I was wrong, way wrong

- for the next couple of years I was becoming gradually more right

- now, 4 1/3 years further along, I'm like TOTALLY right... :-)

- next year, who knows...?

The longer the temperature anomaly trend stays below IPCC projections, the more the world will harden around the notion that IPCC cried wolf. And if it continues to fluctuate around my best fit trend (and coincidentally around the AR4 projection assuming everyone acted back starting in 2007), it will certainly erode (but not disprove) the AGW hypothesis.

To me, reading the tea leaves with wide-eyed naivete, it strikes me that our sun is the biggest missing piece in the IPCC puzzle, and the existence of a solar minimum over the next years / decades may well prove my curve right.

Time will tell. It tends to humble anyone with the audacity to make a "prediction" in any realm involving high variability.

Apologies, the original "prediction" in October 2014 is here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6046504&page=12

I put brackets around the word prediction because in my view, predicting climate and financial markets isn't really possible, best we can do is make guesses and see how they play out.

...bump?

The reason I've brought this up is that I've been reading Nassim Taleb's Antifragile (great book, IMHO), and he goes on at length about protecting yourself against worst case, unpredictable events, rather than relying too much on risk assessment through probabilistic analysis of best available models. One issue he discusses is the idea that theories often change, whereas experience (and observation) generally does not. As I was reading before bed last night I came across this bit:

http://i65.tinypic.com/2w22drp.jpg

It struck me that this was entirely germane to the point I'm trying to make. If our theory / understanding of the drivers of observed climate variability changes over time (as it has, at least in the past), and we've only made plans for our best current understanding, without also making ourselves robust against other outcomes, we leave ourselves exposed.

Hence, regardless of the strength of our conviction about anthropogenic drivers for observed climate change, if we can admit even 1% probability that anthropogenic influence may not be the dominant forcing factor, yet we still believe that temperatures will climb steadily upward (as the available data so far suggest, at least in the longer term), then we need to make ourselves resilient against that possibility and assume that either no efforts are made to reverse harmful emissions, or else that we take dramatic action but it has little or no effect.

I think this means taking a hard critical look at modifying behaviour / exposure in areas where effects may be greatest (e.g., settlements along vulnerable coast lines).

the shill,

I enjoy these threads because climate change is such a complex, polarizing topic that for some reason tends to divide people along political rather than scientific lines. In effect, we have two separate issues: climate science and climate politics.

Your projections fall into the science category in that you are projecting trends without the predetermined position that CO2 is the primary driver of change. The IPCC begins with the premise that CO2 is the primary driver. When the CO2 theory doesn't fit the observations, they respond that it's noise or natural variations rather than seriously questioning their own hypothesis.

The climate politics manipulators have hijacked climate science.

As a result, overwhelmingly everything one reads about climate has a climate politics slant. Once you start looking for it, you'll see this bias everywhere even in articles about otherwise scholarly studies. Sometimes, the climate politics slant is mindbogglingly Orwellian in scope.

Case in point: China was praised for its commitment to cap CO2 emissions... by 2032!!! Meanwhile, China has been given a free pass to build HUNDREDS of coal-fired power plants in China and around the world before that date! If the US somehow cut CO2 emissions to zero, the increase from China alone by 2032 would offset that Herculean effort by the US.

It's hard to wrap my mind around the insanity of that position.

The "climate science" would say let's look at mitigating the effects of climate change rather than restricting CO2.

I'm not clear on why one would "still believe that temperatures will climb steadily upward" indefinitely if the trajectory is being dominated by an "unknown forcing factor". By definition we don't know the behavior of that component. It's no more unreasonable to postulate the AGW contribution is twice what we think and is being suppressed to the observed levels of warming by an "unknown forcing factor".

I haven't read the book you reference, but my interpretation of what I have seen from Taleb doesn't seem to strengthen the case of mitigation skeptics.

Any response will be some combination of mitigation and adaptation. A "hard critical look" at impacts, adaptation, and mitigation is the charter of the IPCC working groups 2 & 3 assessment reports.

The difficulty with global warming is that the root benefit (use of fossil fuels) is local to the consumer and the external cost is neither local or evenly distributed in either a geographic or temporal sense. Thus those whose exposure is to be modified (adaptation to impacts) and how it gets funded is largely independent of how the impacts might have been reduced in the first place (mitigation). This is inevitably a setup for political conflict on every level.

I have no idea what you are trying to convey with that link or comment about Taleb, but his is exactly right:

Citizen Runner wrote:The difficulty with global warming is that the root benefit (use of fossil fuels) is local to the consumer and the external cost is neither local or evenly distributed in either a geographic or temporal sense. Thus those whose exposure is to be modified (adaptation to impacts) and how it gets funded is largely independent of how the impacts might have been reduced in the first place (mitigation). This is inevitably a setup for political conflict on every level.

And independent of the actual truth (or probabilistic strength) of anthropogenic forcing, this (the social context) is the real challenge to focus on, and is in my view more intractable than the technical challenges. It’s also by far the more interesting issue, to me anyway.

And the fact that the IPCC reports discuss adaptation in some way is almost entirely besides the point. We don’t talk (or argue) about that at all, meaning it is not on anybody’s radar and is by far the most important aspect since it is sure to be beneficial whereas mitigation will only benefit to the extent we’ve got the theory right.

Well stated. I am of the opinion that we have too long been waiting to REACT to CC. We have been failing to prevent or stall it. Even if the turning point has slipped by, we need to he PRO-Active about it. (Sort of like getting your kids vaccinated even though they don't currently have a disease )

We often counsel an "abundance of caution" in personal and group safety and health; why not the same "treatment" for the health of the planet that supports us?

As to human responsibility for the crisis in climate we are faced with, I have my lay observation to offer: I have no doubt that we are responsible for the corruption and pollution on land air and sea, the depletion and corruption of natural resources, the annihilation of plant, animal, insect and all living species. In short the one true and guilty invasive species is mankind.

CR,

You first question perplexed me. Why wouldn’t somebody who has spent time looking at temperature data draw the very reasonable conclusion that on the balance of probabilities, temperatures are more likely to continue going up than not? Any anyway, you’ve seen my naive “prediction” from 2014; it shows significant rise to the year 2100 after another 20 or so years if relatively “constant” (wandering noisily about the best fit of course).

Of course temperatures “could” increase by twice or more anybody’s projection. Or they could decrease, maybe with a similar probability. It’s not necessary to conflate observed behaviour with assumed theory.

Three things:

1. Why would you care about what generic "smart people" think when there are good studies about what the actual experts think? I know of at least five studies that put the expert consensus at 97-100%. Some random smart dude's opinion isn't as good as a smart scientist with a PhD who actively publishes in the field.

2. 80% of people agreeing that humans are a significant cause of warming is not the same as saying 80% of warming is caused by mankind. That is totally invalid logically.

3. Your sample from 2014 is so imprecise and small that it is worthless.

My take? Yes, we need to be prepared for warming. But we also need to be doing everything we can to limit the warming. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think you are right about the general point here, but I don't think that is unaccounted for in a proper probabilistic model. If I am going to design a future-facing system that is probabilistic, I'm going to do it in an expected value way. I can determine expected value as follows:

EV=Likelihood x Consequence

So a 1% chance of a really terrible outcome (like warming being caused by natural factors and having severe consequences if we aren't prepared) is a significant piece of the risk pie.

On the other hand, preparing for the worst-case scenario while ignoring its likelihood is a waste of time. The worst thing that could happen right now would probably be something like a nuclear bomb getting dropped in my neighborhood by some unknown threat. In order for me to be prepared for that, I need to go drive to the other side of the mountains and take cover. I'm not going to do that, however, because the likelihood is low enough.

Worst-case scenarios require a lot of preparation. Being ready for them even if their likelihood is extremely low is simply not practical.

You are the one confusing political views with science views. The science is clear. Climate change is happening, and it's driven by humans. Its primary cause is greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. That is the end of the science.

The next step, whether it is mitigating the effects of climate change or restricting CO2, is a political question. But you aren't being more scientific -- you just have a different political view. To me, saying that we should continue doing the very thing that is driving the warming is like saying we shouldn't stop playing in asbestos but should instead "look at mitigating the effects" of the cancer we'll get.

Let me first emphasis that we were postulating recent warming due to an unknown forcing. Without attribution to some physical phenomena we can't say with confidence what that unknown forcing is going to do in the future. There have been statistically significant changes in the surface temperature instrument linear trend. e.g.

Why then would one conclude that the current trend will continue indefinitely?

Attribution studies often use multiple regression techniques or "finger printing" techniques to estimate the response to a set of forcings. Under the postulate that there is an unknown forcing that is indistinguishable from greenhouse gas forcing in the sense that their covariance is (nearly) singular, one can estimate the net contribution (unknown + GHG), but any linear combination of the two that yields that net contribution can not be resolved.

As an aside I've read a bit of "Anti-Fragile" the other night and have some issues with it. Perhaps I'll comment when I have more time.

Think Again wrote:

Three things:

1. Why would you care about what generic "smart people" think when there are good studies about what the actual experts think? I know of at least five studies that put the expert consensus at 97-100%. Some random smart dude's opinion isn't as good as a smart scientist with a PhD who actively publishes in the field.

2. 80% of people agreeing that humans are a significant cause of warming is not the same as saying 80% of warming is caused by mankind. That is totally invalid logically.

3. Your sample from 2014 is so imprecise and small that it is worthless.

My take? Yes, we need to be prepared for warming. But we also need to be doing everything we can to limit the warming. The two are not mutually exclusive.

100% really dude? That shoves everything else you might say out the effing door. You are a clown to say 100% on anything.

I am not claiming 100% of scientists agree with AGW. I am claiming that I know of five studies that place the figure somewhere between 97% and 100%, and there is in fact one that found 100%. Of course that doesn't mean 100% of all scientists agree. It means that, based on the papers analyzed, there were no dissenting opinions on the broad strokes of AGW.

Here is the paper I'm referring to specifically:

They looked at 928 papers that were published between 1993 and 2003 and included the key phrase "climate change" in the ISI database. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus AGW view.

Before going on a rant about how my post shoves anything else I say out the effing door, maybe you should read a bit more clearly.

Some philosophical commentary about probabilistic thinking, .

Most people do not think probabilistically, since notions of probability (and more importantly) are conceptually difficult. My own observation is that most people think in black and white, true or false with no room for these concepts.

A first conceptual step is to allow a third or middle mental setting for “maybe” or uncertain without giving it a value, rather just allowing that something is neither certainly true nor certainly false.

A subsequent conceptual step is to allow that “maybe” can have different values, closer to certainly true or certainly false. In other words, assign a relative value or probability to the uncertainty.

Sticklers may note I am purposefully conflating notions of uncertainty and probability, which will put some people off. I make no apologies for this and won’t argue about it.

A first notion of probability is to treat it in frequence form as the number of positive outcomes in a number of trials. This can be done in a mathematically precise way for flipping fair coins or rolling fair dice, or a less precise but equally valid way by considering a number of imagined trials

A next, critical fundamental concept, but perhaps the most difficult to grasp, is to move from frequence form to subjective, where probability is a measure of degree of belief, or alternatively uncertainty.

The original mathematical formulation of the concept of probability imposed no single basis for its estimation and both frequence and subjective probabilities have the same validity in a philosophical sense in the mathematical formulation.

That said, a very large proportion of scientific thinkers reject subjective probability, as I suspect may be the case for both Think Again and CR, as this seems to be a point of departure between our points of view.