I used to do research on climate change, specifically on combining land, sea, and air models together and getting them to run on a massive cluster. It was very important to the other researches that the models produce the 'right' predictions which at the time was runaway global warming. When the models didn't show this it was presumed that the models were wrong so hyper-parameters were tuned to try to torture the models to produce the 'right' result. When even that didn't work they went so far as future pollute the data. Disillusioned with academia I left to work in industry.
My question is this; How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change 'experts'? Because I feel like I've earned that right.
> When the models didn't show this it was presumed that the models were wrong so hyper-parameters were tuned to try to torture the models to produce the 'right' result. When even that didn't work they went so far as future pollute the data.
Please name and shame. I've also done work in the field, and this kind of behavior was never acceptable - and should not be.
If you let the bad actors hide in obscurity, they will continue to practice bad science.
Like a #metoo movement for scientists. AFAIK Hyper-parameter tuning is fairly normal and necessary given how easy it is for the models to become unstable on their own and future polluting is often accidental. It can come down to judgement calls and difference of opinions as to what degree of intervention is acceptable which leaves a lot of wiggle room If you removed all future pollution and and left hyperparameters at the initial best guess you often end up with crazy results in backtesting. E.g. if our past predictions were correct then we should be living on Venus right now which obviously we're not so we must need different hyperparameters. My former colleagues were trying their best and even they knew their adjustments were going beyond reasonable. They never signed off on the final results so the project was politically useless and subsequently killed. They've all since left the climate change industry disillusioned as well.
> . if our past predictions were correct then we should be living on Venus right now which obviously we're not so we must need different hyperparameters
I would like to know hat models showed runaway warming and were publishing because I don't remember anything like that.
I was talking about backtesting of the models to see if they would have predicted the past correctly. I.e. You run the model from 1970 to today and measure how close the model prediction is with the actual measurements. If it's too far off then obviously the model is wrong and changes are made to try to improve it.
> It was very important to the other researches that the models produce the 'right' predictions which at the time was runaway global warming. When the models didn't show this it was presumed that the models were wrong
Sorry, you have claimed that the scientists wanted the 'right' predictions, that was runaway warming.
I repeat, can you link to any scientists saying in 2006-2007 that the most probable outcome was runaway warming?
The group leaders were pushed things too far for me to accept as legitimate but not far enough to produce the results needed. We were aware of others that pushed things even further and they got to continue working. This adds a selection criteria bias to those still doing the research which has me trusting them even less. And this was before ClimateGate which made the shenanigans done by other groups public.
Your reference to and unreserved use of the term "ClimateGate" makes me question your agenda here. Wasn't "ClimateGate" determined to be a smear campaign? I'm asking rhetorically as I can see the discussion devolving.
I generally keep my eyes open for climate change news and didn't see this. Do you have any reasonable references that explain that ClimateGate was a smear campaign? I thought it was a small number of committed researchers making some mistakes and straying from strict scientific protocols; I never saw that it was a smear campaign.
Sounds like we have a similar background. How long ago was this? How many models did you work with?
I had access to a few models and it was trivial to cause runaway warming. It was naturally something everyone tried when they were handed the keys to the servers. I recall causing the oceans boil within a few centuries.
I think in order to make the claim that climate change isn't happening, you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming.
There is fundamental data that does not depend on climate models that tells us we're in danger. Atmosphere composition in one of them. Ocean ph is another.
If you have specific criticisms against how climate models are being run, then the place for that debate is within the scientific community, with scientific arguments. Apparently you have decided that is not for you, though.
I make no claim that climate change isn't happening. Being between the modeler and the results meant it was my job to explain the result to the modeler. So criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half.
> criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half
So you had a long and glorious career spanning more than 18 months, that makes you feel entitled to criticize those who studied the field for decades and are actually making a living therein.
My answer is - you need to actually understand the thing you're criticizing, not just feel like you do. Another prerequisite is a lack of agenda or bias.
> you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming.
It's not so easy to be sure about the warning produced by the CO2 because a very big part is the "Climate Sensibility". And there is no straightforward way to calculate the climate sensibility, you must use climate models. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_...
> CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[14] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
> "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.
We're going to get warmer, to find out how much warmer, you need more complex models.
No one is making the claim that "change isn't happening". The skeptical view point isn't even "warming isn't happening". The skeptical view is that catastrophic warming isn't an accurate prediction of future temperature trends.
I believe the primary difference between the "consensus crowd" and the "skeptic crowd" is that the consensus crowd is confident in the predictive value of models that have a net positive feedback sensitivity to temperature increase while the skeptics argue that we don't actually know what the feedback mechanisms well enough to be confident in the models and in fact basic physical principles argue for a negative net feedback to temperature increases (to avoid runaway warming).
As for possibile negative feedback loops, increased CO2 might increase clouds, which increases the earth's albedo resulting in less energy input from the sun, which reduces temperature.
Let me clarify. There is a difference between warming and catastrophic warming. Serious skeptics are arguing against catastrophic warming as predicted by the models.
There is another level of debate, less foundational, regarding the quality of our temperature observations and the amount of warming (not catastrophic warming) that is a result of natural variation, human activity, measurement errors, data adjustments and the like.
Observational warming has in general been less than that predicted by the models suggesting that the extrapolation into the future by the models may not be accurate.
> Serious skeptics are arguing against catastrophic warming as predicted by the models.
What catastrophic warming? Or better, define catastrophic warming
And by the way, 90% of skeptics still say that there is no warming.
> Observational warming has in general been less than that predicted by the models suggesting that the extrapolation into the future by the models may not be accurate.
I'm using the phrase 'catastrophic warming' to refer to the warming predicted by climate models as opposed to the warming directly observed today and in the historical record.
Anthropomorphic global warming theory is roughly two connected claims. 1) rising CO2 levels caused by human activity results in a rise in the average global temperature and 2) the climate system has a feedback mechanism (sensitivity) that magnifies this CO2 induced warming.
Basic physics can be used to determine the warming caused by increased CO2. There are no serious skeptics in regards to these physical properties of CO2. My understanding is that the IPCC reports have consistently reported this warming as 1-1.5 degrees for every doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
But that temperature rise isn't enough to create the catastrophic side effects that you see reported. That rise has to be magnified by the climate system through a variety of feedback mechanisms. This magnification/sensitivity can't be measured. It is the output of the climate models not one of the input parameters. Credible skeptics argue that a positive sensitivity is incorrect and that the climate system (as with most natural systems) has a negative sensitivity.
Here is what seems to be a reasonable review of predictions vs observations using a variety of methodologies most showing observations trending towards the lower half of the predicted ranges of the models (as opposed to trending toward the center line of the predictions): https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overst...
I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to have my own suspicions, so thanks for speaking up. If you're not trolling, really do consider writing under your real name and naming others involved. If it's too much of a risk to anyone's career or personal safety right now, you could always wait to publish until you're retired and/or old.
I think you're being too harsh on my former colleagues, they were not evil or even particularly bad people. Hyperparameter tuning is necessary and future pollution is often accidental. The problem is when the tuning is goal seeked and the future pollution is not accidental and these problems are endemic to the industry and science in general. CRU East Anglia of Climategate fame went much further and actually published their results and I'm pretty sure none of them are in jail.
My colleagues left the industry which makes me less optimistic about those who stayed.
> How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change 'experts'? Because I feel like I've earned that right.
Well, distrust of experts is the fuel that powers the anti-vaccination trend, the fluoride scare, etc. There are large hordes of soccer moms out there who feel the same as you do - that they are more qualified than the experts to make decisions on vaccination schedules.
But let's get back on the main topic. The answer to your question, of course, is - you are entitled to distrust experts when you are an expert yourself. Not a semi-dilettante, not someone who has dabbled in related fields, not someone who made coffee for the actual experts.
My question is this; How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change 'experts'? Because I feel like I've earned that right.