Comments on: Rahmstorf 7 Finale http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Niche Modeling » Recent Climate Observations: Disagreement With Projections http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4779 Niche Modeling » Recent Climate Observations: Disagreement With Projections Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:41:30 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4779 [...] the ’slide and eyball’ approach. I engaged with Rahmstorf at RealClimate and wrote a number of articles on the uncertainty, until he told me in effect to ’sod off and publish’. But rather than try to diagnose a [...] [...] the ’slide and eyball’ approach. I engaged with Rahmstorf at RealClimate and wrote a number of articles on the uncertainty, until he told me in effect to ’sod off and publish’. But rather than try to diagnose a [...]

]]> By: Niche Modeling » Fishery Predictions of Global Warming http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4778 Niche Modeling » Fishery Predictions of Global Warming Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:44:08 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4778 [...] mentioning both sides of the uncertainty distribution. Although they do cite a piece of flotsom called Rahmstorf et al. 2007. There is considerable uncertainty regarding climate model predictions, in both time and space. [...] [...] mentioning both sides of the uncertainty distribution. Although they do cite a piece of flotsom called Rahmstorf et al. 2007. There is considerable uncertainty regarding climate model predictions, in both time and space. [...]

]]> By: Niche Modeling » Global Warming Statistics: OET (ordinary eyeball test). http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4777 Niche Modeling » Global Warming Statistics: OET (ordinary eyeball test). Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:48:22 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4777 [...] Experience has shown that it produces reliable results in almost every situation. Moreover, these results are very convincing. So convincing was the OET known as the Hockey Stick that it was used in press releases of Third Assessment Report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 report, featured in the award winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, and is still widely used throughout government and science. It has rendered yeoman service in garnering acceptance for the false notion that temperatures are the highest they have been for a million years. Figure: Example of the Ordinary Eyeball Test (OET) from Rahmstorf et al. 2007. One of the most recent examples of the OET is in the publication by seven IPCC lead authors (the Rahmstorf7) of Rahmstorf et al. 2007 in Science. Here it was used as the main scientific support for the notion of a present ‘runaway warming’ using a classic OET method to demonstrate that “the climate system is responding faster than our current generation of models suggest”. So convincing was this OET that on this piece of evidence alone, the Australian Garnaut commission determined that “Developments in mainstream scientific opinion … suggest that the world is moving towards high risks of dangerous climate change more rapidly than has generally been understood”. Recent economic modeling shows that implementing a 90 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 would alone require closing 3 out of 4 coal fired power stations, and building new clean power stations at a cost of $50 billion dollars. Unfortunately the OET is vulnerable to attacks from the numerate, particularly the claim that uncertainty has not been properly accounted for. Some of the curve has been taken off the Hockey Stick with his studies, but this has not prevented it from remaining in widespread use. The OET must be valid as these papers have been accepted by reviewers in Nature and Science. Some concerns have been raised in a submission to the Garnaut commission pointing out more arcane part of the methodology stems from the same person who developed Hockey Stick (Michael Mann) and that it advocates an even more extreme position than the already quite extreme global warming consensus of IPCC. On questioning about the uncertainty in the OET of the Rahmstorf7 at RealClimate.org, Rahmstorf seemed confused about the operation of the methodology itself, and suggested it concerns be taken to peer review. It never pays to look too closely at an OET. There are a few of the opinion that even papers that have passed Science and Nature’s peer-review processes, and scientific reports such as the IPCC approved by more than 100 governments, could benefit from review of the methodology by at least one expert statistician. But then the statistical deficiencies would be brought to wide public notice and much of the effectiveness of the OET would be lost. [...] [...] Experience has shown that it produces reliable results in almost every situation. Moreover, these results are very convincing. So convincing was the OET known as the Hockey Stick that it was used in press releases of Third Assessment Report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 report, featured in the award winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, and is still widely used throughout government and science. It has rendered yeoman service in garnering acceptance for the false notion that temperatures are the highest they have been for a million years. Figure: Example of the Ordinary Eyeball Test (OET) from Rahmstorf et al. 2007. One of the most recent examples of the OET is in the publication by seven IPCC lead authors (the Rahmstorf7) of Rahmstorf et al. 2007 in Science. Here it was used as the main scientific support for the notion of a present ‘runaway warming’ using a classic OET method to demonstrate that “the climate system is responding faster than our current generation of models suggest”. So convincing was this OET that on this piece of evidence alone, the Australian Garnaut commission determined that “Developments in mainstream scientific opinion … suggest that the world is moving towards high risks of dangerous climate change more rapidly than has generally been understood”. Recent economic modeling shows that implementing a 90 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 would alone require closing 3 out of 4 coal fired power stations, and building new clean power stations at a cost of $50 billion dollars. Unfortunately the OET is vulnerable to attacks from the numerate, particularly the claim that uncertainty has not been properly accounted for. Some of the curve has been taken off the Hockey Stick with his studies, but this has not prevented it from remaining in widespread use. The OET must be valid as these papers have been accepted by reviewers in Nature and Science. Some concerns have been raised in a submission to the Garnaut commission pointing out more arcane part of the methodology stems from the same person who developed Hockey Stick (Michael Mann) and that it advocates an even more extreme position than the already quite extreme global warming consensus of IPCC. On questioning about the uncertainty in the OET of the Rahmstorf7 at RealClimate.org, Rahmstorf seemed confused about the operation of the methodology itself, and suggested it concerns be taken to peer review. It never pays to look too closely at an OET. There are a few of the opinion that even papers that have passed Science and Nature’s peer-review processes, and scientific reports such as the IPCC approved by more than 100 governments, could benefit from review of the methodology by at least one expert statistician. But then the statistical deficiencies would be brought to wide public notice and much of the effectiveness of the OET would be lost. [...]

]]> By: davids http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4776 davids Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:51:32 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4776 Peter, That looks good. Perhaps there is a need to put in the actual links as they will scroll off the blog. http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/ for summary. http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al-2007-ipcc-error/ for discussion. Regards Peter,

That looks good. Perhaps there is a need to put in the actual links as they will scroll off the blog.

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/ for summary.

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al-2007-ipcc-error/ for discussion.

Regards

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-6381 Anonymous Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:51:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-6381 Peter, That looks good. Perhaps there is a need to put in the actual links as they will scroll off the blog. http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/ for summary. http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al-2007-ipcc-error/ for discussion. Regards Peter,

That looks good. Perhaps there is a need to put in the actual links as they will scroll off the blog.

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/ for summary.

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al-2007-ipcc-error/ for discussion.

Regards

]]> By: Peter Gallagher http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4775 Peter Gallagher Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:32:57 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4775 Damn! The link to the letter does not work. Please find the draft at: http://www.petergallagher.com.au/files/SSAI_letter.pdf Damn! The link to the letter does not work. Please find the draft at: http://www.petergallagher.com.au/files/SSAI_letter.pdf

]]> By: Peter Gallagher http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-6380 Peter Gallagher Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:32:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-6380 Damn! The link to the letter does not work. Please find the draft at: http://www.petergallagher.com.au/files/SSAI_letter.pdf Damn! The link to the letter does not work. Please find the draft at: http://www.petergallagher.com.au/files/SSAI_letter.pdf

]]> By: Peter Gallagher http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4774 Peter Gallagher Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:31:03 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4774 My apologies, Ian, for the misplacement of the apostrophe in your name. Peter. My apologies, Ian, for the misplacement of the apostrophe in your name. Peter.

]]> By: Peter Gallagher http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-6379 Peter Gallagher Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:31:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-6379 My apologies, Ian, for the misplacement of the apostrophe in your name. Peter. My apologies, Ian, for the misplacement of the apostrophe in your name. Peter.

]]> By: Peter Gallagher http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4773 Peter Gallagher Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:29:47 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-finale/#comment-4773 I have just seen Ian Castle's suggestion about a letter to the President of the SSAI. I have drafted this letter that makes the points he suggests. I will email the letter in the next day or so. If readers of this website have any comments to add, meanwhile, please email me using the link on my website. I have just seen Ian Castle’s suggestion about a letter to the President of the SSAI. I have drafted this letter that makes the points he suggests. I will email the letter in the next day or so. If readers of this website have any comments to add, meanwhile, please email me using the link on my website.

]]>