Posted on 09/26/2013 11:00:52 PM PDT by Rocky
Over the last day or so, Julia Slingo has sent a polite, but somewhat evasive response to Nic Lewis regarding his critique of the UKCP09 model. It can be seen here.
Nic Lewis's reaction is here. I don't think he is very impressed. The key exchange relates to the following paragraph in Slingo's paper:
Having said that, it is true that the relationship between historical aerosol forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) depicted in your Figure B1 is based only on the PPE. But we disagree with your assertion that the results from HadCM3 are fundamentally biased. It is certainly the case that versions of HadCM3 with low climate sensitivity and strongly negative aerosol forcing are incompatible with the broad range of observational constraints. But the key point is that the relationship between aerosol forcing and ECS is an emergent property of the detailed physical processes sampled in the PPE simulations.
To which Nic's response is this:
This is a key paragraph, which in effect concedes that my main criticism is valid. I don't dispute the point that in HadCM3 – and very possibly other models – the relationship between aerosol forcing and ECS is an emergent property. That is precisely why HadCM3 is not suitable for a PPE study in which, supposedly, "uncertainty in the response of the climate system to CO2 forcing is comprehensively sampled".
In essence, Slingo seems to be admitting that the low climate sensitivity, low aerosol forcing scenario that the observations suggest exist in reality cannot be simulated by HadCM3, but effectively handwaves this problem away. As Nic puts it:
In effect, her view seems to be that it doesn't matter what the observations imply, because the models rule out the possibility of low aerosol forcing, low ECS combinations. I am reminded of a famous line by Bertold Brecht to the effect of: "The people have failed the government. The government must elect the new people." But the Met Office can no more replace the real climate system with one that agrees with the models than a communist government could replace the people with one that satisfied its ideology.
http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/response-to-your-comments-on-met-office-july-reports.pdf
and to Nic Lewis' response:
http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/slingo-letter-comments1.pdf
I thought this was especially worth posting because of the ending to Nic Lewis' response, which addresses much of what is wrong with the attitude of global warming alarmists.
Slingo ends her response with:
"I trust that you will take these comments in the spirit in which they are offered – as part of a constructive scientific debate. As I said we appreciate your contributions to the literature on these topics; but the implications of climate change are so profound that it is essential that scientific debate takes place in the appropriate forum. With this in mind I think it is appropriate that further discussion be subject to proper peer review, through the scientific journals."
Nic Lewis' response is worthy of note, and of repetition:
"This appears to represent an attempt to stifle reasoned scientific debate. I am perfectly open to review by my peers. Anyone with expertise in climate science is welcome to try to pick holes in my critique of the Met Office July report (3) and, in particular, in what I say about the Harris et al study. The Met Office has singularly failed to do so, and in the course of its attempts has displayed worrying misunderstandings by its most senior scientist on several important topics. The limitations of peer review are shown by the fact that the fundamental weakness of the Harris et al study – and its sister study Sexton et al 2012 – was evidently not focussed on by the peer reviewers. And as has been commented on elsewhere, persuading a journal to publish a critical comment about a paper it has published is not easy – maybe particularly so when the paper is by scientists at the Met Office, a major source of journal papers.
Peer review certainly has its place. However, often peer review gives a veneer of respectability to work that conforms with a consensus, but is in fact deeply flawed. Conversely, good work that contradicts the consensus may be kept out of the peer - reviewed literature, or at a minimum delayed, by gatekeepers defending consensus positions. The profound potential implications of major climate change, the huge costs involved in mitigation attempts, the unsettled state of scientific understanding of many of the key climate processes involved and the need for members of the public – particularly those with scientific or technical expertise – to place trust in the climate science involved surely all point to the need for an open scientific debate alongside the publication of peer reviewed studies. When protagonists refuse to provide reasoned and convincing defences to non-peer reviewed technical criticisms of their work by other researchers with established expertise in the area involved, that is a signal not to trust their work, irrespective of it having been peer reviewed.
In conclusion, Dr Slingo's letter effectively concedes my main criticism of the Harris et al (2013) HadCM3-based PPE study, that it fails to sample low aerosol forcing, low ECS combinations that several recent observational studies indicate have a substantial probability of representing the real climate system. In effect, her view seems to be that it doesn't matter what the observations imply, because the models rule out the possibility of low aerosol forcing, low ECS combinations. I am reminded of a famous line by Bertold Brecht to the effect of: ‘The people have failed the government. The government must elect the new people.’ But the Met Office can no more replace the real climate system with one that agrees with the models than a communist government could replace the people with one that satisfied its ideology."
...but I had to look for an FR "keyword" to even understand the basic area being discussed...
...and even then it pretty much jumps right in to the middle of facts, figures, and links.
Could you provide some context to this article? Thanks!
These are two of the best; ClimateAudit for the outstanding work of Steve MacIntyre, a retired statistician who exposed the hockey stick as a lot of garbage, and the unreliability of temperature proxies -- most notably the Yamal Tree Ring Data in estimating past temperatures -- among many other things, and Bishop Hill for his dry Brit snarkiness and down-to-earth explanations (with all due respect to Steve, his expositions do get lost in the weeds sometimes.)
This blog post article is about an issue in the models for AGW, and a rather hapless bureaudrone at the Met Office (essentially the weather and climate government bureau in the UK) whose theory about why climate models are still good even though they don't actually work is thoroughly demolished by a climate skeptic.
There are a number of very droll comments at the link to this blog, that actually sum up the situation much betetr than the excerpt. I especially liked this one:
Having lost the point, she tries to run off and hide in pal review.
She obviously does not understand that the whole CAGW charade was exposed from outside this process. The Mann hockey stick, Forster ECS, Marcott hockey stick, OLeary SLR, Trenberth hiding heat,... Have all been exposed as fundamentally flawed by dedicated folks who bothered to educate themselves on the science and scrutinize the studies. Something pal review on all the above failed to do.
She might be annoyed that that climate reality and her models don't match up. Doesn't really matter. Nic has exposed the situation for the world to see and learn, including her sore loser part. Bet lots of people and lawyers spent lots of time on her reply.
Sorry. I can see how it might be a bit confusing.
Nicholas Lewis’ education is in mathematics and physics at Cambridge. He coauthored a paper in 2011 with Ryan O’Donnell, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon having to do with Antarctic temperatures. He recently wrote a critique of a report issued in July by the UK Met Office (Meteorological Office) entitled: “The recent pause in global warming (3): What are the implications for projections of future warming?”
Julia Slingo of the UK Met Office responded to his critique with her letter, which I linked above in my original post. Nic Lewis then responded with his letter, also linked above.
The reason I posted this on Free Republic is that I thought Lewis’ statement at the end of his letter addressed very well the problem with the global warming alarmists’ methods. Namely,
1) An insistence on peer reviewed articles, when we know from the Climategate e-mails that they control the peer reviewed process to be sure that contrary opinions to not get published in peer reviewed literature. And,
2) A tendency to believe in an ideology in spite of contradictory facts. That is, they believe the projections made by their models even if the models conflict with actual observations.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Thanks Rocky.
Thanks for the explanation. I read the article twice and was guessing it had something to do with public transportation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.