Join the conversation

1. Permalink

   

   Ken Fabian

   Mr (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)

   In spite of uncertainties it doesn't take genius to see that there are good reasons to expect more intense bushfires in Australia due to climate change. Even the windows of opportunity for safe fuel reduction burning can and will be impacted by rising minimum overnight temperatures during cooler months, as much as risks for fire severity will be increased by rising maximum temperatures during hotter months.

   The old method, of lighting cool weather fires with a strong expectation that they will self extinguish during cool nights from dew build up will be less reliable when the nights are warmer and less areas are getting reliable and predictable cool nights that cause dew that reduces flammability. And isn't rising minimum temperatures, even more than rising maximum temperatures a feature of climate change so far? Just doing safe fuel reduction burning will be ever more labour and cost intensive and more likely to escape containment.

2. Permalink

   

   James Jenkin

   EFL Teacher Trainer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Professor Bowman says scientitsts should speak up about climate change because “extreme events can cause disastrous harm to our society".

   Fair enough - but you could suggest, when we talk about possible effects of climate change, we need to look at how likely they are, as well as how serious they are.

   1. Permalink

      

      Paul Richards

      (logged in via Twitter)

      James, you may well have a point.
      However there will always be a reluctance to go into great detail when using foresight as we are dealing with future events, and this is a specialist field. At best future events are projected probabilities and at worst fueled purely by the human imagination.

      If you have followed "The Conversation" you will be aware that any foresight information published here receives "comments" clearly triggering emotional responses not disimilar to the know stages of grief…

      show full comment

      James, you may well have a point.
      However there will always be a reluctance to go into great detail when using foresight as we are dealing with future events, and this is a specialist field. At best future events are projected probabilities and at worst fueled purely by the human imagination.

      If you have followed "The Conversation" you will be aware that any foresight information published here receives "comments" clearly triggering emotional responses not disimilar to the know stages of grief. So GCC is often dealt with as
      pure human imagination and not science.

      Which is a totally understandable response, given some respondents value system, stage of personal evolvement and imagined loss of their projected future is at stake.

      Whether you are a climate change expert or CEO of GM, dealing with foresight really is the domain of experts and here in Australia we are fortunate to have some of the world leaders in the field.

      Realistically it is time the scientists involved in climate science consulted their colleagues in this discipline for advise about how to decimate critical foresight projections.

      Those specialist who follow this forum will understand my comments and you can be assured they are waiting for the opportunity to help.

      1. Permalink

         

         stephen prowse

         (logged in via Twitter)

         Paul, you have hit the nail on the head. I believe that scientists have a responsibility to communicate their science to the public, recognising all that that entails. In the AGW discussion this means communicating information on temp, sea level, ocean acidity etc. Most scientists are not well equipped to communicate forecasts, hypotheses and projections that affect our lifestyles, homes, jobs, families and futures, ie where there are social implications.

         If I can quote from a recent article…

         show full comment

         Paul, you have hit the nail on the head. I believe that scientists have a responsibility to communicate their science to the public, recognising all that that entails. In the AGW discussion this means communicating information on temp, sea level, ocean acidity etc. Most scientists are not well equipped to communicate forecasts, hypotheses and projections that affect our lifestyles, homes, jobs, families and futures, ie where there are social implications.

         If I can quote from a recent article in Nature on science and public engagement "Engagement is different; a tribal disdain for the social sciences still holds sway in the laboratory, as does a haughty disregard for the views and demands of the general public. Both outlooks need to be jettisoned if science is to contribute and thrive in this new world"
         Nature 479:447, Wednesday, 23 November 2011
         http://www.nature.com/news/science-s-attitudes-must-reflect-aworld-in-crisis-1.9419

         So we must be brave and speak up, but take into account the audience, the context, the uncertainties and the unknowns. We must be prepared for people to disagree, to cherry pick data, to spout falsehoods and to refrain from exchanging insults.

         1. Permalink

            

            Paul Richards

            (logged in via Facebook)

            Stephen - I have studied "foresight" but am not a practitioner. However, you might find Spiral Dynamics interesting. Clare Graves made it his life's work, if you are a visual learner here is a link to the best visual chart I know. Leave the Quadrant data till later, just read the Spiral Dynamics;
            http://pialogue.info/definitions/spiral_dynamics_aqal_BIG.jpg
            Good start if you learn by reading better.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics

            Email me if like.

   2. Permalink

      

      Andrew Glikson

      (Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)

      James writes: "when we talk about possible effects of climate change, we need to look at how likely they are, as well as how serious they are."

      Basic climate science, confirmed by direct observations, indicates that rising temperatures result in (A) heat waves and thereby fires, (B) regional draughts; (C) enhanced hydrological cycle, i.e. evaporation and precipitation, leading to floods; (D) increased intensity of cyclons due higher sea water tempeature,

      No single extreme weather event, i…

      show full comment

      James writes: "when we talk about possible effects of climate change, we need to look at how likely they are, as well as how serious they are."

      Basic climate science, confirmed by direct observations, indicates that rising temperatures result in (A) heat waves and thereby fires, (B) regional draughts; (C) enhanced hydrological cycle, i.e. evaporation and precipitation, leading to floods; (D) increased intensity of cyclons due higher sea water tempeature,

      No single extreme weather event, i.e. bushfire, flood or cyclon can be regarded as a manifestation of climate change. On the other hand, decade scale trends do:

      According to the Munich Re-insurance the frequency of extreme weather events has doubled during 1998-2008 (https://www.munichre.com/touch/login/en/service/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/touch/publications/en/list/default.aspx?id=1060).

      Examples for 2010 include according to NOAA (July 15, 2010): (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html):

      “June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record Last month’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made it the warmest June on record and the warmest on record averaged for any April-June and January-June periods … Worldwide average land surface temperature was the warmest on record for June and the April-June period, and the second warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period, behind 2007”. The monthly analysis from NOAA is based on records going back to 1880”.

      A string of extreme weather events monitored by NASA in 2010 portrayed on http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/ tells the story, including:

      1. Hottest temperature on record for Asia, with 53C in Pakistan. The mega-floods in this part of the world are the result of the increased capacity of the warming atmosphere to hold moisture, precipitated when the humid air masses rise above the Himalaya.

      2. Moscow has also been recording temperatures of 37.4 degrees C, the monthly anomaly will be a record of around +7.5 degrees C, with a death toll reaching 2000 people. Extreme temperatures, reaching 40 degrees C in Moscow, have set large parts of Russian forests and wheat belts on fire
      http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-wildfires-2010-8#more-first-just-
      294-miles-south-of-moscow-7

      3. Beijing had it hottest day on record earlier in the month, 40.6C.

      4. Japan scored a 39.4C on 22nd July.

      5. Hundreds of maximum and minimum temperature records have been broken across the U.S. and Canada in the last two months. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.php?ts=daily&elem=maxt& month=7&day=26&year=2010&sts[]=US&submitted=Get+Records#recs ;
      http://blogs.sacbee.com/photos/2010/07/roasting-under-a-hot-summersu.
      html

      6. Raging wildfires broke out July 29 just south of Los Angeles, CA, forcing mandatory evacuations and major firefighting response. http://www.businessinsider.com/big-breathtaking-photos-of-californiaburning-2010-7#-5#ixzz0vseD4yf6.

      consistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann and Krichhoff laws of infrared radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law ;
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation), these events manifest the increase in energy (temperature) levels of the atmosphere and oceans, consequent on the emissions of about 370 billion tons of carbon since 1750, i.e. more than half the original atmospheric inventory of 590 billion ton carbon..

      1. Permalink

         

         John Nicol

         (logged in via Facebook)

         Andrew,
         As you are well aware, none of the speculative findings of “climate science” taken from the AOGCMs are verifiable by “direct observation”.

         We have yet to be shown a “projected” distribution of temperatures for 2010 which fitted even approximately to those which were measured in that year. Is this too much to ask before we restructure our fragile economy for the purpose of meeting the demands of those promoting the idea that carbon dioxide is causing “unprecedented” global warming…

         show full comment

         Andrew,
         As you are well aware, none of the speculative findings of “climate science” taken from the AOGCMs are verifiable by “direct observation”.

         We have yet to be shown a “projected” distribution of temperatures for 2010 which fitted even approximately to those which were measured in that year. Is this too much to ask before we restructure our fragile economy for the purpose of meeting the demands of those promoting the idea that carbon dioxide is causing “unprecedented” global warming?

         At best I believe a model can derive the temperature in some region of the world in a particular year but not repeat that same capable result in successive years or in other regions simultaneously. I would be very interested indeed in seeing the best results which can be achieved from such a test.

         In "Chapter 8 of the IPCC report AR4 2007, section 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability" it states explicitly “What does the accuracy of a climate model’s simulation of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its projections of climate change? This question is just beginning to be addressed, exploiting the newly available ensembles of models.” JUST BEGINNING TO BE ADDRESSED!!!

         How this can possibly be construed as meaning that their results are “confirmed by direct observation” surely beggars belief. I know that in the Executive Summary and elsewhere mention is made of attempts to relate simulations to specific events in specified areas, but the accuracy of a model purporting to be of the global climate, surely must be capable of some demonstrable level of verification by observation of the climate in ALL regions at the same time. This is very obviously not the case and so-called verification of the models in specific regions only is the equivalent at best of the weather forecasts being correct 60% of the time only when the 10% better than chance could have been achieved by some untrained person simply looking at the clouds.

         One has only to read the later sections, 8.1.1.3…. to understand just how speculative are the results, particularly recognising that all sections of the IPCC report are phrased so as to give the highest credence possible to the ideas being promoted for global warming.

         I think James has made a good point in asking whether scientists should also be advocates. “To get a run in the media, there is strong pressure to add spice and tell an interesting story” and “Modelling also can’t tell us how climate change will affect specific places. Ecology is extremely difficult to build into climate change models, so models also can’t grapple with how the biosphere will respond to climate change.”

         He is also a realist “It is unclear how much extra risk climate change adds to the threat”
         and
         “climate change is a potent “hook” for an issue the media is only interested in immediately after a disaster”

         What is most important is his comment that:
         “At a practical level it doesn’t matter much if, for example, a severe bushfires like the 2009 Victorian disaster is due to climate change or not.”

         His type of “alarmism” if you like, about bushfires, is based on sound experience and the very real threat they pose to life and property. He does not require a “model” to demonstrate that where housing has been allowed to be built close to the edge forests, it is in danger, as has been so sadly demonstrated though many very real "experiments" in Victoria and elsewhere, for a period of well over 150 years. To suggest that there is any relationship between the tragic results of these “experiments” and speculative results indicating future Global Warming, is quite disingenuous.
         
         Alarmism regarding climate change includes the immediate nonsense being promulgated regarding the likely reasons for years from the last ten being the “highest on record”.

         Perhaps you are unaware that the temperature of the globe has a very high component of randomness. Perhaps this could be explained and predicted if we had an infinity of information, but there is also a close connection between all atmospheric parameters and chaos.

         You may also be unaware that at the mid point of the little ice age, as I have said before, the earth had three choices regarding its future temperature – it could become colder, it could remain the same or it could become warmer. This was a point in time long before the industrial revolution. However, it “chose” to become warmer, emerging from the ice about 1850, and continuing along that path to the present day. Thus the period 2000 to 2012 has inevitably – not to do with carbon dioxide, climate change or anything else, even if these factors are important – arrived at peak. Rapid warming has stopped at least for the moment, but the randomness remains and from that, as with any system one considers, there MUST be some years whose randomly higher temperature is “the highest since ??” This is a feature of a graph of any quantity you like to name and NOT unique to global temperatures.

         While it will undoubtedly be disappointing for all those working in the (publicly) well funded government and University climate science units that temperatures have not risen for a few years, and I can sympathize with them, perhaps it is an opportunity for them to rethink some aspects of their models and attempt to improve the accuracy to a point where they can perhaps provide a snapshot of the climate over at least half of the globe which matches the known land surface and ocean temperatures in say, 2006, using as a starting point the year 1940, in which the starting parameters must have been fairly well know.

         1. Permalink

            

            Andrew Glikson

            (Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)

            John,

            I wish you were correct and that dangerous anthropogenic climate change would not occur.

            You are arguing not with me but with:

            1. The laws of physics (Planck, Stefan-Bolzman, Krichhof laws of black body radiation).
            2. Basic climatology.
            3. The bulk of the scientific peer review literature (I sent you a number of key papers earlier).
            4. The world's premier climate research organizations (NASA/SISS, NOAA, NSIDC, Hadley-met, Tyndale, Potsdam Climate Impact, CSIRO, BOM and numerous…

            show full comment

            John,

            I wish you were correct and that dangerous anthropogenic climate change would not occur.

            You are arguing not with me but with:

            1. The laws of physics (Planck, Stefan-Bolzman, Krichhof laws of black body radiation).
            2. Basic climatology.
            3. The bulk of the scientific peer review literature (I sent you a number of key papers earlier).
            4. The world's premier climate research organizations (NASA/SISS, NOAA, NSIDC, Hadley-met, Tyndale, Potsdam Climate Impact, CSIRO, BOM and numerous other institutions).
            5. The world's academies of science.
            6. The IPCC - based on the work of hundreds of climate scientists and thousands of peer review papers.

            GCM constitute large-scale computer-facilitated scientific experiments, using a range of initial conditions and processes consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, obtaining results which are continuously tested vis-a-vis empirical datasets, as used in EVERY BRANCH IN SCIENCE, from medical science to aeronautic engineering.

            However, we do not rely on GCMs but on the basic laws of physics and on detailed understanding of the behaviour of the atmosphere/ocean/crysophere system, past and present.

            In so far as you believe you can challenge climate science, I suggest you prepared a detailed well referenced discussion paper and submit it to one of the peer reviewed scientific journals.

            1. Permalink

               

               Paul Richards

               (logged in via Twitter)

               Andrew G, I admire your persistence.
               It's commendable, thanks for the article.
               Defending the science and advocating the position of those who are on board is appreciated.

               I like Tim's attitude, admire the inventiveness, it is creative.

            2. Permalink

               

               John Nicol

               (logged in via Facebook)

               Andrew,

               Thank you for your remarks. I am sorry if my comments which were directed at what you had said about "highest" temperatures in the last ten years, appeared to represent an argument with you. I have seen these comments before and I was merely trying to point out the common fallacy of interpreting the effect of somewhat random variations of a parameter superimposed on a possibly cyclical function which has reached a peak, as indicating that these "necessarily" highEST values have a somewhat…

               show full comment

               Andrew,

               Thank you for your remarks. I am sorry if my comments which were directed at what you had said about "highest" temperatures in the last ten years, appeared to represent an argument with you. I have seen these comments before and I was merely trying to point out the common fallacy of interpreting the effect of somewhat random variations of a parameter superimposed on a possibly cyclical function which has reached a peak, as indicating that these "necessarily" highEST values have a somewhat sinister meaning which opposes the possible downwards trend of the main function. This does not have anything whatsoever to do with the laws of Plank, Stefan, Boltzmann of Kirchhoff.

               I do not understand when you say you do not rely on the models but on the laws of physics. The IPCC, as far as I can tell, as well as our CSIRO, publishes reports based solkely on the reults from atmospheiric modelling. If this is not the case, then AR4 should be rewritten to explain exactly how the laws of physics are used directly to come to the conclusion that CO2 causes warming. This does not appear to be discussed in the papers you kindly sent me and which I do appreciate, even though I continue to take a different approach to the problem of global warming. My concern is always that the details of the laws of physics you have quoted are incorrectly applied in the models. This appears to be evident from basic publications such as those by James Hansen whose diagram of radiation transfer and cycling is used by the IPCC, the primitive analyses by Arrhenius, Carpentar and others who I believe correctly analyse the Green House Effect which contributes to a small degree to the 33 C increase in global temperature above radiative equilibrium, but do not accept in any way the results of more modern and much more accurate spectroscopy by Barett and Hug for example, whose work shows that the increased forcing from additional CO2 is very much smaller than that claimed by climatologists who work on much cruder estimates.

               I do acknowledge the work done by the bodies you quote and have no argument with much of what they are trying to do. However, it is frustrating that they dismiss without any acknowledgement, the work of scientists such as Barrett who could contribute to their understanding of the effects of CO2 from laboratory experience and thorough theoretical studies of the problems they seek to solve through models, which in my humble view, invariably make use of unsubstantiated absorption and radiation characteristics of CO2. Regards, John

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Chris O'Neill

                  Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                  John Nicol:

                  "but do not accept in any way the results of more modern and much more accurate spectroscopy by Barett and Hug"

                  It beggars belief that only a researcher with views accepted by very few scientists such as Hug would be nearly the only person to make use of the most accurate spectroscopy available. This amounts to a conspiracy theory. But as I said before, since you don't accept climate science, you have the luxury of not needing to be honest.

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     John Nicol

                     (logged in via Facebook)

                     It is of continuing interest for me to witness the weakness in the arguments supporting the hypotheis that carbon dioxide can cause significant increases in global temperature, while its supporters refuse to be drawn into any discussion on the science. Instead they immediately attack anyone seeking to participte in a sensible, even if superficiasl, discussion on the science

                     Instead they attach labels such as sceptic and denier, then seek to identify and denigratwe other people with whom the person…

                     show full comment

                     It is of continuing interest for me to witness the weakness in the arguments supporting the hypotheis that carbon dioxide can cause significant increases in global temperature, while its supporters refuse to be drawn into any discussion on the science. Instead they immediately attack anyone seeking to participte in a sensible, even if superficiasl, discussion on the science

                     Instead they attach labels such as sceptic and denier, then seek to identify and denigratwe other people with whom the person may associate, then they look up to see what institutional affiliations that person might have and of course then attack the institutions which are always labeled as being funded by "Big Oil"! Mostly they do NOT know anything at all about the relationships between different institutions A and B - but what does it matter - we will label B as being supported by institution A simply because we have already spent time making denigrating statements aboutA so we can use these to criticise B.

                     They ignore or deny that the climate institutions and CSIRO who secretively consider their models to be infallable - running expensive computers funded by the people of Australia, in fact you and me, - can draw funds from whom ever they like and are not answerable to those people in the public who funded them. In fact a defined goal is to satisfy the requirements of that funding body, the government, which is very keen to support the idea of global warming for purely political reasons. This is why at least two pople have been shifted out of CSIRO - because they did not follow closely enough to the defined dogma.

                     The next step in denigrating someone when you find that their arguments may contradict your own ideas is to label them "dishonest". In this, of course, there is no need to explain why you are saying the person is dishonest. Obviously you are not capable of constructing a case to support the accusation, so just have to leave it at that. This is particularly important if you do not understand the meaning of high resolution spectroscopy as compared to the very general ideas of bulk absorption as applied in climate models and for which they do not have the skills or inclination to improve upon, as is evident from the publications they present on the subject.

                     I have made these comments very general, but if the cap fits, then wear it.

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Chris O'Neill

                        Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                        Dear John,

                        Whatever happened to "the temperature trend has been downwards since 2002"?

                        Refuse to be drawn into any discussion on the science indeed. What a hypocrite you are.

         2. Permalink

            

            Tim Scanlon

            (Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)

            I love reading John Nicol's inevitable replies to climate articles. He and his denier mates - Bob Carter, David Evans, Ian Plimer, etc - always manage to say such funny things about climate and climate change. They are comedic genius'.

            The part I really appreciate is their satire of climate change data. John has a great one here with his statement "Rapid warming has stopped at least for the moment, but the randomness remains and from that, as with any system one considers, there MUST be some years…

            show full comment

            I love reading John Nicol's inevitable replies to climate articles. He and his denier mates - Bob Carter, David Evans, Ian Plimer, etc - always manage to say such funny things about climate and climate change. They are comedic genius'.

            The part I really appreciate is their satire of climate change data. John has a great one here with his statement "Rapid warming has stopped at least for the moment, but the randomness remains and from that, as with any system one considers, there MUST be some years whose randomly higher temperature is “the highest since ??”

            This is pure comedic gold. Think about it, he is confounding natural variability with long term trends, he is turning on its head the facts of the past decade being the warmest and having several of the hottest years ever, and then topping it off with the ambiguity clause. John Nicol is the thinking man's comedian.

            I really would have liked him to have at least have mentioned some of the most recent research showing that 2011 was the hottest La Nina year on record. I'm sure he could have pulled a real zinger out.

            1. Permalink

               

               John Nicol

               (logged in via Facebook)

               Tim,

               I am glad to know that you enjoy my contributions. Since from your comments you are obviously a much more highly regarded scientist than those you list above, could I ask you a couple of questions?

               1. Can you point me to charts published by CSIRO or the IPCC which show how closely the models are able to reproduce the actual known climate in the large regions over which it is claimed they are best at representing the climate, please, and the tracking of the global temperature by these…

               show full comment

               Tim,

               I am glad to know that you enjoy my contributions. Since from your comments you are obviously a much more highly regarded scientist than those you list above, could I ask you a couple of questions?

               1. Can you point me to charts published by CSIRO or the IPCC which show how closely the models are able to reproduce the actual known climate in the large regions over which it is claimed they are best at representing the climate, please, and the tracking of the global temperature by these models from earlier known climates?

               2. Can you also explain to me why their earlier projections (IPCC) in 2001, showed increased warming consistent of course with the increased forcing from rising CO2 up to the present time when the temperature trend has been downwards since 2002?

               I know Tamino's analysis using simple models claims to follow global temperatures as they have been since about 1800. This is totally unrealistic, since: (A) The IPCC denies that the solar variance has a significant effect on the global temperature, and hence their models make no allowance for the quiescent sun in cycle 24, a likely cause of the current cooling and (B) the forcing used to represent the effect of CO2 on global temperature must obviously provide an increase in the temperature estimates of the models, since CO2 has unequivocally increased by about 5% in the last ten years.
               
               This claim from Tamino appears to go far beyond what the IPCC and our local CSIRO modellers are prepared to say, and their best estimates provide much higher temperatures than have actually been measured, which is why there has been a growth in papers from many climatologists trying to explain the difference in terms of both solar behaviour and aerosols.

               I am also wondering if you could address my earlier post explaining why somewhat random variations in a parameter (any parameter, but most important here is the global temperature) will lead to a local "maximum" at the end of a period over which it has been fairly continuously increasing? This has lead, I believe to a misuse of the fact that over the past ten years some of our highest temperatures have occurred, to infer that the temperature trend must still be rising which is a quite unjustified interpretation.

               I thank you and look forward to your helpful explanations, which I am hoping you can give me without having to quote some authority. Cheers, John Nicol

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Tim Scanlon

                  (Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)

                  Hi John, I am honoured that you want to include me in your comedy team by "asking me some questions". I guess I'm to play the straight man and explain the jokes to people.

                  Another classic post from you John, going straight for the comedic gold by phrasing your post as though scientists don't ever reference other's work and that science is not building upon other's knowledge and filling in the gaps. Brilliant. To imply that only one scientist's work or that person's work is valid in a discussion…

                  show full comment

                  Hi John, I am honoured that you want to include me in your comedy team by "asking me some questions". I guess I'm to play the straight man and explain the jokes to people.

                  Another classic post from you John, going straight for the comedic gold by phrasing your post as though scientists don't ever reference other's work and that science is not building upon other's knowledge and filling in the gaps. Brilliant. To imply that only one scientist's work or that person's work is valid in a discussion has me laughing out loud.

                  I love your questions too, deliberately framing, terrific stuff. I especially like the second one. If I may, I can see a sketch we could do with it. We'd be sitting in a science museum staring at a temperature graph. I'd be the straight man, you'd be making a comment about how the temperatures haven't increased at all since 2002. I'm looking at the graph confused, wondering how you could make that comment. Then the audience would get to see you sitting next to me with your head on an angle. Laughs. Then I'd straighten your head and the final punch line could be something like "Why didn't someone tell me earlier!"

                  I'm very keen to get together and work on your last joke. At the moment it seems a little hard for an audience to get the comedy inherent in confounding climate and weather. I'm sure we could come up with something as good as Armstrong and Miller if we worked on it together:
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     John Nicol

                     (logged in via Facebook)

                     Thanks for your brilliant response Tim. Unfortunately I missed your comments on the topic of climate change which I had believed was part of the title of this thread.

                     You really should be prepared to selflessly share your superior understandingof the subject with all of us, but are obviously too busy calculating the global temperature over perhaps the next 10 to 20 years.

                     But you did give us all a laugh with your ready wit. So thank you for that. John Nicol

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Tim Scanlon

                        (Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)

                        Thanks for the compliment John, but my satire is not even close to your levels of wit.

                        Once again, another great post John, "missing my comments on the topic", lol. Another great misdirection, as is the implication of wanting to debate the topic. The irony used here is terrific, only a truly great comedian could dodge and weave around a topic like this. Throwing in as many one liners whilst avoiding counterpoints, I hope to one day be as good as you. If only I hadn't spent so many years focused on science.

               2. Permalink

                  

                  Chris O'Neill

                  Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                  John Nicol:

                  "the present time when the temperature trend has been downwards since 2002"

                  This just isn't intellectually honest. There is no significant downwards trend. The trend in GISTEMP has been TINY (-0.000177096 per year) while the trend in UAH is also small but positive.

                  I fully realize that as someone who denies climate science, you have the luxury of not needing to be honest.

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     John Nicol

                     (logged in via Facebook)

                     You may think so Chris but there are others who agree with me:

                     "In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and…

                     show full comment

                     You may think so Chris but there are others who agree with me:

                     "In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

                     In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

                     Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

                     The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2"

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Chris O'Neill

                        Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                        John Nicol:

                        "You may think so Chris but there are others who agree with me"

                        What? What happened to your "temperature trend has been downwards since 2002" assertion? I see, you're just running a Gish gallop. Sorry, I'm not naive enough to be taken in but such a dishonest tactic.

                        "The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts."

                        If "temperature trend has been downwards since 2002" is an example of your "stubborn scientific facts" then the only thing that's stubborn is your refusal to acknowledge the facts.

                        "The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections"

                        "Smaller-than-predicted" meaning 0.174 deg C/decade instead of 0.2: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1990/trend Oh my God. What a scandal. Call a Royal Commission. 0.174 instead of 0.2! How will the IPCC ever live that down?!

         3. Permalink

            

            Paul Richards

            (logged in via Twitter)

            Right on queue,
            John pipes up demonstrating a "comment" that is a clear illustration of my remarks early on;

            "If you have followed "The Conversation" you will be aware that any foresight information published here receives "comments" clearly triggering emotional responses not disimilar to the know stages of grief.
            So GCC is often dealt with as pure human imagination and not science." earlier comment

            Adding to my earlier comments on individuals responses - qualifying that this depends…

            show full comment

            Right on queue,
            John pipes up demonstrating a "comment" that is a clear illustration of my remarks early on;

            "If you have followed "The Conversation" you will be aware that any foresight information published here receives "comments" clearly triggering emotional responses not disimilar to the know stages of grief.
            So GCC is often dealt with as pure human imagination and not science." earlier comment

            Adding to my earlier comments on individuals responses - qualifying that this depends on the level of study in certain fields and the clear 'cognitive biases' demonstrated.
            Not withstanding levels of development, value systems attained etc.etc. As demonstrated in "Spiral Dynamics", we have a genuine example of a highly intelligent response to an issue that conflicts with a personal value system.

            With these individuals there is no conventional reasoning, it take the skills of a genuinely brilliant Foresight Practitioner and toolkit of techniques to realise a value system change.

            It's time we invited some into the forum.

         4. Permalink

            

            Chris O'Neill

            Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

            John Nicol:

            "We have yet to be shown a “projected” distribution of temperatures for 2010 which fitted even approximately to those which were measured in that year."

            John Nicol must be talking about some planet other than earth because the measured temperature for 2010 fits right within the AR4 model runs: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ar4mods.jpg

            1. Permalink

               

               John Nicol

               (logged in via Facebook)

               G'day Chris,

               I have had a good look at Tamino's picture but find very little similarity between it and the projections provided by the IPCC prior to the current decade. The statements concerning comparisons with real data made in AR4, admitting that such truthing is "just about to begin" are there for all to see and there is no compaprable presentation up to 2007 as Tamino purports to be reporting.

               Chris, it beggars belief that had they (IPCC) had in their kit an honest plot similar to…

               show full comment

               G'day Chris,

               I have had a good look at Tamino's picture but find very little similarity between it and the projections provided by the IPCC prior to the current decade. The statements concerning comparisons with real data made in AR4, admitting that such truthing is "just about to begin" are there for all to see and there is no compaprable presentation up to 2007 as Tamino purports to be reporting.

               Chris, it beggars belief that had they (IPCC) had in their kit an honest plot similar to that shown at the link you give, but showed it nowhere!!. It would not have been prominantly displayed on the front door of every climatology unit in the land. It is not. It has not been published elsewhere, at least as far as I am aware and I have been incontact with various units and the head of CSIRO climate unit for some six years asking for just this type of definitive representation of the output from models.

               In addition it is only for the one parameter when most of the other important associated parts of climate, Convection, clouds, precipitation......, are, according to the IPCC, very poorly represented by the output from models. Their one concern was with temperature and they did not do that very well either. John Nicol.

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Chris O'Neill

                  Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                  John Nicol:

                  "I have had a good look at Tamino's picture but find very little similarity between it and the projections provided by the IPCC prior to the current decade."

                  Ignoring of course the projections provided by the IPCC in this decade e.g. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1-figure-1.html

                  "I have been incontact with various units and the head of CSIRO climate unit for some six years asking for just this type of definitive representation of the output from models."

                  You must be very happy now that it has been published in AR4. I wonder why you didn't mention that?

                  "Their one concern was with temperature and they did not do that very well either."

                  Isn't it time for you to stop living in the past? How about reading AR4 sometime. Probably more productive than writing about how little you know on blogs.

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     John Nicol

                     (logged in via Facebook)

                     Hi Chris,

                     I had thought that this thread had burned out but am happy to make one last entry.

                     Both the Tamino plots and the one from the IPCC are simply showing that by putting in the right parameters and adjusting them from point to point - what the IPCC reporters refer to as "tweaking" or something similar, - meaning they can adjust sufficient inputs by appropriate amounts to caus the models to deliver a given known result. This is a first stage in testing the models and a very necessary…

                     show full comment

                     Hi Chris,

                     I had thought that this thread had burned out but am happy to make one last entry.

                     Both the Tamino plots and the one from the IPCC are simply showing that by putting in the right parameters and adjusting them from point to point - what the IPCC reporters refer to as "tweaking" or something similar, - meaning they can adjust sufficient inputs by appropriate amounts to caus the models to deliver a given known result. This is a first stage in testing the models and a very necessary and useful part of the whole excercise. The next bit is more difficult unless the tweaking stage has provided correct formulations of all constants and boundary conditions to provide for future projections for unknown values of the output variables. In the words of the IPCC AR 2007, "this process is just being considered" or again, words to that effect. They plan now to try to test the quality of the models in predicting future unknown climates and making later comparisons. Depending on the number of adjustable parameters in the input of course, they may be able to do that test by starting at an earlier year and "projecting" to 2003 say. However, if there are the same number or more (some "redundant") parameters than points in the initial tweaking process, which remain in the models, they must always come back to the same, preordained value for 2003.

                     So no the plots you refer to do not prove the ability of the models to predict the climate in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. They simply prove that the models are capable of reproducing or producing outputs commensurate with real global climates and sure, that is a very good start for such a comlex computer programme.

                     One must remember that the models are not attempting to provide a "functional" fit to data, since there is not, or should not be, a preconceived form for the climate seqence over n years, and which defines a small number of parameters in terms of the accuracy by which they can reproduce all of the n points in the sequence with the least magnitude for the residuals (the sum of the differences squared). While this type of analysis is very common in physis where theory provides an accurate model of, say, a spectral line shape, in terms of perhaps 10 parameters of Gaussian widths, height, baseline etc, allowing afunction to be fit to an experimental profile of perhaps 300 points, the climate system requires each point to be subject to different values for each parameter at each point, usually anyway, but of course for there to be some connectionbetween these values because of physical behaviour of winds or currents etc. So the latter climate modelling is much more difficult and by implication, much less accurate as is observed from the reults for the 23 different models shown in AR4, Cheers, John

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Michael J. I. Brown

                        (ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)

                        Does the IPCC AR4 report refer to "tweaking" as John Nicol suggests? No. A search for "tweak" or "tweaking" at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html reveals nothing.

                        1. Permalink

                           

                           John Nicol

                           (logged in via Facebook)

                           Michael,

                           No Michael, they dfon't actually use the word "tweak" but this term has been used elsewhere, is a standard way of describing careful adjustment of parameters which is explained carefully in the sections of AR4 wgich I quoted in response to a similar question from Chris O'Neill above. My reference is IPCC Report AR4 2007 Sections 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.2.1, 8.1.2.2, 8.1.2.3 and 8.1.2.4. Read them carefully and completely, several times perhaps, until you understand fully what they are…

                           show full comment

                           Michael,

                           No Michael, they dfon't actually use the word "tweak" but this term has been used elsewhere, is a standard way of describing careful adjustment of parameters which is explained carefully in the sections of AR4 wgich I quoted in response to a similar question from Chris O'Neill above. My reference is IPCC Report AR4 2007 Sections 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.2.1, 8.1.2.2, 8.1.2.3 and 8.1.2.4. Read them carefully and completely, several times perhaps, until you understand fully what they are saying.

                           The simple facts are that.

                           1. Yes they have done a lot ov f very careful and appropriate work in adjusting parameters within what they believe are plausible ranges so as to be able to reproduce climates over many tens of years and for past centuries apparently. This gives confidence that the models can in fact grind their way to a correct value without some artificial constraint, provided other aspects of the programming are correct.

                           No indication is given of the number of parameters which can be so adjusted in order to obtain the relationshiup between the known temperature, for example, over the 100 year or more period but it reasonable to expect that it exceeds by some factor, the number of different points defined in the trial. If this is the case, it leaves open the possibility that the models may also then be capable of matching other years which do not lie within the range of known climates, perhaps as far out as 2100. But this is not assured.

                           2. The next stage, as correctly identified in AR4, is to test the models predictive capacity in which the previously adjusted parameters (coupling coefficients etc) remain constant, while the inputs of earlier climate factors are fed in with the expectation that the model will be able then to determine correctly the climate distribution over the entire globe in years which have not been part of the adjustment exercise. etc. Can they for instance correctly represent the global temperature for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 following the adjustements which were made up to 2007?

                           Thus, at the time of writing AR4, the resiults of these "adjustments to parameteres" does not tell them that the determination for the temperature in 2013 will necessarily be correct, nor the temperature in 2050 or 2100. It simply, provides the first step in saying that there are sufficient variables with appropriate flexibility within the ranges allowed to prevent random or chaotic behaviour, to match the wide variety of climates represented by the years 1850 to 2006.

                           Also, it does not tell them that the model is able to correctly spot the climate in 1990 without some appropriate tweaking ("adjustment" if you prefer) of appropriate parameters, unless 1990 was one of the chosen years for adjustment. That next step in testing was to be taken in the near future, but we have not yet been privy to the results, if such exist, as far as I am aware.
                           John

                           1. Permalink

                              

                              Michael J. I. Brown

                              (ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)

                              http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ar4mods.jpg may be of interest, as it compares some individal AR4 models runs with recent temperatures. Similar plots can be found on SKS.

                              "Tweaking" is a commonly used term but isn't in IPCC AR4. Perhaps it is best to avoid the use of " " unless the text is actually a quote from the relevant document or person

                              1. Permalink

                                 

                                 John Nicol

                                 (logged in via Facebook)

                                 Thanks Michael.

                                 Yes, the number of delimiting indicators on this Word Press Blog are a bit limited but I will be more careful perhaps in future. I have looked at Tamino's site and I believe you will find, that since he is only testing what he claims are AR4 models, these will suffer from the same limitations as those described in the references I have given - they will be made to fit the data so as to ensure boundary conditions etc are OK.

                                 I must say, that as an "astophysicist" or "astronomer…

                                 show full comment

                                 Thanks Michael.

                                 Yes, the number of delimiting indicators on this Word Press Blog are a bit limited but I will be more careful perhaps in future. I have looked at Tamino's site and I believe you will find, that since he is only testing what he claims are AR4 models, these will suffer from the same limitations as those described in the references I have given - they will be made to fit the data so as to ensure boundary conditions etc are OK.

                                 I must say, that as an "astophysicist" or "astronomer", an ARC Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University, which has been host to produced some pretty high class physicists in its time, I am quite dumbstruck by your continuous reference to the low level blog of John Cooke's, Science Skeptics. John Cooke is a reasonably capable person in many respects, even though he actually failed fourth year phyics at UQ and left, and produces a very professional looking website. But "looking" is definitely where it stops, you will find, if you you go there more than once.

                                 The clientele he attracts would be amongst the most stupid on the internet, another fact that I cannot understand. I believe that the real reason is that even John Cook himself, in spite of the name he gave to his site, is not in the least interested in the science, but only in studying the best ways to counter arguments about the science put forward by sceptics. Everyone to his own I suppose.
                                 Regards,
                                 John

                     2. Permalink

                        

                        Chris O'Neill

                        Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                        This thread burned out only because you chose to ignore my response to your (I presume) regurgitation of a Wall Street Journal talking point. So I'll repeat it here.

                        You said:

                        "The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections"

                        "Smaller-than-predicted" meaning 0.174 deg C/decade instead of 0.2: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990…

                        show full comment

                        This thread burned out only because you chose to ignore my response to your (I presume) regurgitation of a Wall Street Journal talking point. So I'll repeat it here.

                        You said:

                        "The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections"

                        "Smaller-than-predicted" meaning 0.174 deg C/decade instead of 0.2: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1990/trend Oh my God. What a scandal. Call a Royal Commission. 0.174 instead of 0.2! How will the IPCC ever live that down?!

                        Your other claims:

                        "Both the Tamino plots and the one from the IPCC are simply showing that by putting in the right parameters and adjusting them from point to point - what the IPCC reporters refer to as "tweaking" or something similar"

                        Where is your citation? As for your original claim:

                        "We have yet to be shown a “projected” distribution of temperatures for 2010 which fitted even approximately to those which were measured in that year."

                        The forecast trend from whatever model they used in 1990 was 0.2 degrees/decade instead of the actual trend of 0.174 degrees/decade. This means the “projected” temperature for 2010 was 0.052 degrees higher than the actual trend temperature in 2010. Obviously an error of 0.052 degrees is not what you call approximate but other people have a different idea of what "approximate" means in this case.

                        I'll leave you to move around your 0.052 degree deck chairs.

                        1. Permalink

                           

                           John Nicol

                           (logged in via Facebook)

                           Chris,

                           One more response only here.

                           My reference is IPCC Report AR4 2007 Sections 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.2.1, 8.1.2.2, 8.1.2.3 and 8.1.2.4. Read them carefully and completely, several times perhaps, until you understand fully what they are saying. John

                           1. Permalink

                              

                              Chris O'Neill

                              Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                              "the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections"

                              Also, figure 6.20 6.21 etc of SAR show projections. You're wrong if you think those projections are all too high or even most of them too high.

                              1. Permalink

                                 

                                 Paul Richards

                                 (logged in via Twitter)

                                 Chris - all this back and forth about the issues loses sight of the overview. It is all about "Risk Management". We take a huge risk if we do nothing and Climate Change is real, if we don't we save a fortune.

                                 If we act as if it is happening it will cost the economy a fortune.
                                 If it costs a fortune but save many thousands of times more, in life, infrastructure, in other words civilisation itself. It is very very cheap.

                                 Which decision do you want to be party to, just taking into account
                                 "Risk Management", and not science?

                                 This denial banter just doesn't cut it, why bother.

                                 1. Permalink

                                    

                                    Chris O'Neill

                                    Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)

                                    "all this back and forth about the issues loses sight of the overview"

                                    Indeed. That's why I occasionally add statements like "I'll leave you to move around your 0.052 degree deck chairs" in response to reality-denialists. They're arguing about the second decimal place of warming forecasts and claiming it's a "wild exaggeration". But they just ignore the facts that they don't want to deal with and go off on a deck-chair-moving tangent.

                                    1. Permalink

                                       

                                       Paul Richards

                                       (logged in via Twitter)

                                       Chris - those who been around here since the start, understand your feelings.
                                       But your time is valuable.

                                       Their voice is creak against a thunderous roar of evidence. You are mostly fighting, [depending who] one of the "five stages of grief". Generally the "bargaining" stage, after all, these guys have lost their projected future, this is serious stuff : /

                                       People don't ever change emotional decisions with logic, it's a lost cause. No matter how correct you are.

                                       Still a man has to do what a man has to do. Wishing you well.

                                       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

               2. Permalink

                  

                  Michael J. I. Brown

                  (ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)

                  It beggars belief that John Nicol, the chair of the "sceptic" Australian Climate Science Coaltion (ACSC), knows so little about climate science.

                  There are plots similar to the one introduced by Chris O'Neill in Chapter 8 of IPCC AR4 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html).

                  The data used to generate such plots is available from the IPCC Data Distribution Centre.

                  The data, models and plots have been widely available for years, so why does John Nicol claim to be completely unaware of them?

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     John Nicol

                     (logged in via Facebook)

                     It beggars belief that Michael Brown, who suigests that his knowledge of climate science is so significant, even though he refuses to discuss this "knowlwdge", probably for fear of being exposed as somewhat ignorant of the subject, doesn't realise that both of the plots he referes to showing correspondence between model results and measured valus of temperature, in fact relate to the continuous adjustment of parameers to make the models fit the dasta for each year. The IPCC refers to this as…

                     show full comment

                     It beggars belief that Michael Brown, who suigests that his knowledge of climate science is so significant, even though he refuses to discuss this "knowlwdge", probably for fear of being exposed as somewhat ignorant of the subject, doesn't realise that both of the plots he referes to showing correspondence between model results and measured valus of temperature, in fact relate to the continuous adjustment of parameers to make the models fit the dasta for each year. The IPCC refers to this as "tweaking". This is a totally different process from testing against future data - starting the run at 1930 and projecting what the climate will be like in 2000 with no further input or adjustment in between. If you read the IPCC AR4 report more carefully, you will see that they are only just beginning to attempt this latter excercise as of 2007. They may of course be well advanced in that by now but I am not aware of what has been done. The preliminary process of being able to adjust parameters so that the models could be made to fit each individual year is an entirely different, but equally important process in developing global models. However, these two distinct processes should not be confused. No suggestion is made by the IPCC or anyone else in the climate fraternity, that such prognostic calculations can be achieved accurately yet.

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Michael J. I. Brown

                        (ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)

                        Since John Nicol is trying to rewrite climate science, one would expect him to know climate science thoroughly. Instead he often makes glaring errors. Many of his conjectures about climate science are false.

                        For example, does the IPCC refer to "tweaking" as John Nicol suggests? No. A search for "tweak" or "tweaking" at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html reveals nothing.

                        I have pointed out ignorance and error, but have never claimed to have a knowledge of the subject comparable to professional climate scientists.

                        1. Permalink

                           

                           Paul Richards

                           (logged in via Facebook)

                           Michael - As you are aware at best future events are projected probabilities and at worst fuelled purely by the human imagination positive or not.

                           Any foresight information published here e.g. GCC - receives "comments" clearly triggering emotional responses, not dissimilar to the know "stages of grief". Which is a totally understandable response, given some respondents "value system" and "stage of personal evolvement" and their their projected future is on the line.

                           Interestingly they are highly…

                           show full comment

                           Michael - As you are aware at best future events are projected probabilities and at worst fuelled purely by the human imagination positive or not.

                           Any foresight information published here e.g. GCC - receives "comments" clearly triggering emotional responses, not dissimilar to the know "stages of grief". Which is a totally understandable response, given some respondents "value system" and "stage of personal evolvement" and their their projected future is on the line.

                           Interestingly they are highly intelligent, analytical generally successful and are often heard by others on their level - stage of development. We often lump together intelligence with "value system" or "stage" or "level" which really fails to see the real persons perspective and respond appropriately.

                           From my anecdotal experience John Nicol, and a few other noted individuals who lather up at the mention of the keyword "climate" are at the "bargaining stage", using the "Five Stages of Grief" analogy. I will leave the “stage” or “level” they are at to another time. However, from my reading you here your personal awareness, value system, stage or level - whatever we label it, is highly evolved. Others just are not and it would not be appropriate for them. Commenting here today having made no mention personality traits or forte was deliberate, it's just to complex.

                           Anyone who has read psychology or studied "Foresight" will be aware that these individuals perception, is valid and appropriate for their stage of life.

                           Out of context with others perception, series of facts - etc.etc. But none the less "real" to them, all of us here need to respond to these individuals with respect, understanding and an awareness of their perspective. At heart their motive is pure, and best of all they don't threaten the truth or real world outcomes.

                           We all love reading you, so encourage you to keep up your respectful approach it works, thanks.

   3. Permalink

      

      Byron Smith

      (PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh)

      Prof Bowman is clearly concerned with how to communicate risk responsibly, which includes both these factors.