The initiative officially launched in Canada on December 7, 2012, and in the U.S. on January 9, 2013 at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Diego. Other countries have had inaugural events since then. The European launch was held March 5 in conjunction with MPE day at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Events that day included a screening of the film Exit (about human global migration), a panel discussion on what mathematics can do for the planet and a public lecture by Edward Lungu of the University of Botswana on utilizing the environment to manage HIV/AIDS.
Rousseau hopes that the initiative will help nurture new ideas for dealing with climate change and encourage changes at the political level. Rousseau says that communicating the economics of the situation to politicians is key. "They want to know how much it will cost if you act now, and how much it will cost if you don't act now. It will be so much more expensive if we act later."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
58 Comments
Add CommentI am sorry but this smells very badly. If mathematicians want to help illuminate reality in the climate science debate shouldn't they begin by looking at the mathematics behind the fraudulent hockey stick graphs first? Or examine the validity of reporting warming after the raw data has been 'adjusted' by adding a warming signal? One of the reasons why Scientific American has lost so many readers is because it is no longer all that scientific and has embraced a faith based post-truth era in which good intentions and activism take centre stage while the scientific method is ignored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as I understand your skepticism over the topic. I think it is admirable that math community is stepping up to examine the issue. Few things are harder to argue with than math and perhaps this will finally end the debate of climate change one way or another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe entire premise of the MPE organization and the article seems rather silly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ability of models to forecast the weather or climate accurately is not dependent upon some new form of mathematics. The reason that the current models are not performing well is that modelers do not yet adequately understand the various forcings impacting the system and the weights and timing of these forcings as they interact with each other and change in the amount that they affect the system in relation to one another over time. It is not a math issue.
And your "scientific evidence" for this is what, gut feelings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease stop coming here and regurgitating climate denier lies made up by fossil fuel companies. You are so hopelessly behind on the state of climate science and since you haven't even bothered to look into ANY serious scientific papers on this issue, I doubt that can be fixed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800's - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Well put!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThird question: What's happening in the rest of our solar system?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMath is fine as long as it has all the data, accurate data, what weight to give the data, the relationship of the data, etc. There are no 'experts' to provide this level of input to any model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's all 'guestimates' with maybes, mights, mays, perhaps, ifs, etc. Tweak one of a hundred variables and the math is for math's sake and doesn't reflect reality.
I don't see any evidence that we currently have a valid model:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
Of course, Hansen's imagination might fare somewhat better. Let us check:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen88.jpg
Nope, that's worse.
I guess climatology is desperately in need of mathematical assistance. More so, for statisticians. LOL GK
sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou write as someone who is unfamilar with the development and use of computer models.
Hindcasts are of zero importance to the users of a model. They are used to help develop a model (the correct use)or wrongly to claim that that a model is reliable because it can sucessfully match a hindcast. (as many have done regarding the climate)
When you are comparing a hindcast to a model you are only comparing a small postion of the actuals systems performance. You are looking at how well the model in question did on specific characteristics of the system and not the actual system.
To determine how well a model actually works it must be compared to observed conditions. Climate models specifically try to forecast multiple variables. The correct procedure is to compare how well a model has forecasted each variable and then to develop an analysis that tells you that this model seems to be reliable for this variable within this margin or error, over this timescale.
Nobody who has used models would claim that a model needs to be 100% accurate. You once again make silly inaccurate claims. What needs to be defined is what specific variable a model can be relied upon over what timescale.
Try to learn more about models before trying to argue a silly position based upon propaganda and not the engineering of model development.
Does all of your "evidence" come from tabloids and blogs from denialists whose views have been laughed out of every credible scientific community on the planet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like you could teach people a thing or two about desperation. LOL
Evelyn, I had not heard of this before. This is really fantastic news. Nothing works better for difficult problems than interdisciplinary work. Modeling climate and human influences on freshwater resources is one thing that interests me very much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you do any work in “sustainability” make sure that it is carefully defined. It has become as useless a term as “green” or “all natural.”
I agree that the availability of reliably interpreted data is a critical issue in what must be long term climate models. Personally, I hate math, but perhaps formal evaluations of the methods used to interpret sketchy data might improve model results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, based on my experience with computer performance models, I think that formal verification and validation procedures for climate models are sorely lacking if not completely overlooked - perhaps mathematicians can also help in these areas...
MARCHER,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't waste too much time with Karst. He refuses to read anything except the tabloids. I attempted to get him to read only a few sentences from the book
FUNDAMENTALS OF ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION
By Craig F. Bohren, Eugene Clothiaux
http://books.google.com/books?id=XomQ4Qyyyy8C
He refused. He simply kept repeating erroneous information that he apparently got from the Daily Mail and other tabloids.
His knowledge of science includes the belief that "CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect." He seems to believe that absorption (which he usually calls adsorption) only has to due with nuclear reactions.
Some denialists you just have to ignore. julianpenrod, who mostly talks about NWO and the Illumnati, is another one like Karst.
My evidence for this are the previous reviews of the mathematics and methodology of the MBH papers. When I look at most of the paleoreconstrutions I see the same errors being repeated over and over again. Not only are researchers using proxies that respond to factors other than just temperature they confuse and reverse signals and cut off data series after it begins to diverge from the desired conclusions. Most of the papers seem to indicate a very poor understanding of leading edge mathematical techniques and require the input of serious mathematicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdd to this the fact that some of the warming comes models that are incapable of making accurate predictions and that the expected signals of warming are not being observed and we have a much bigger problem than SciAm is willing to admit. I could understand researchers failing to understand some of the errors they made when trying to apply techniques that are over their heads but to see them show that they are unable to count is somewhat embarrassing. How can it make sense to have climate change researchers claim that polar bears are in trouble when their numbers have gone up from around 5,000 in the late 1960s to more than 25,000 today? And how exactly can researchers claim that CO2 is a pollutant when greenhouse operators pay to increase its concentration in their grow operations? How can they claim that corals cannot survive higher CO2 concentrations when coral first appeared on this planet when concentrations were ten times the current level? Or that something that we call an average global temperature has much meaning when higher average values can come from a longer growing season without extreme summer readings? How scientific is it to ignore the fact that exposure to extreme cold is far more dangerous to humans and other life on this planet than exposure to extreme cold. (Mortality rates increase during the cold winter months and decline in the summer.)
As I wrote before, SciAm needs to get off the advocacy wagon and stick with the actual science.
But I have looked into the papers. There are hundreds of papers from all around the world that show that the world was warmer during the MWP and Holocene Optimum than today without having human emissions of CO2 cause a material change to the atmosphere. I have read papers that show that the link to solar activity and other natural factors is far stronger than the imagined link to CO2 levels. I have read papers that show that changes in CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperatures, not the other way around. That makes CO2 the effect, not the cause. I could go on but I doubt that logic and reason will make a dent in faith based positions taken by the alarmists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot acting is appropriate when the act is foolish and costs more than any benefit that we are trying to obtain. I am old enough to have heard some of the loudest voices in this debate call for action to stop global cooling and world overpopulation. Acting to stop imagined man-made cooling is no more wise than acting to stop man-made warming.
Again, its lovely to make unsubstantiated claim regarding the science, or your equally baseless claims on this publications readership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, personally I'll stick to the scientific consensus from every institution of national or international standing over the ravings of "VangelV".
Meh, its a slow day and work and I was bored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make an excellent point though.
Mathematics is the language of science and, as any language, has to constantly improve to describe reality and our ideas. So, for those who consider this a waste of resources, they belong to the times of illiteracy and obscurantism. Scientific American has been and still is a great source of knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, Quetz
you think SA is a great source of science if you do not actually do science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly whiny denialists like you come to a site just to complain about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"However, personally I'll stick to the scientific consensus from every institution of national or international standing over the ravings of "VangelV"."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow ironic. Science does not advance on any imagined consensus. All that matters is the actual data and the methodology used to come up with the conclusions. The climate alarmists don't do science because their methods have far too many errors and uncertainties and their models are unable to predict future events very well.
So, you make a series of claims without offering the tiniest shred of proof and insist your findings are irrefutable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I should disregard the opinion of actual qualified experts because you say so?
Denialists like yourself don't do science because you are not scientists any more than the "experts" bought and paid for by the tobacco industry to claim cigarettes are harmless.
"Mathematics is the language of science and, as any language, has to constantly improve to describe reality and our ideas."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't have problem with this statement. But mathematicians are quite capable of looking at the mathematical tools being used to advance the alarmist or skeptic cause and evaluate them. For example, it is actually not all that hard to see that a methodology that creates hockey stick trends out of random red noise inputs is not very good at telling us what is going on.
<b>So, for those who consider this a waste of resources, they belong to the times of illiteracy and obscurantism.</b>
You miss my critique. I am simply pointing out that these mathematicians have plenty of material to evaluate already and have avoided getting involved.
<b>Scientific American has been and still is a great source of knowledge.</b>
Really? You would think then that it would point out to its readers that CO2 is used by plants as food and is not considered a pollutant.
You would think that it would point out to its readers that polar bear populations have gone up, not down during the 30 year warming period that has just ended.
You would think that it would clearly explain just how the hockey stick was created by the paleoalarmists.
You think that it would clearly explain to readers that the predictions about increased hurricanes, snowless winters, and ocean warming were all wrong. And that it would remind readers that there is no consensus because there are thousands of research papers that tell a very different story than one being told by the IPCC and the alarmists.
<b>So, you make a series of claims without offering the tiniest shred of proof and insist your findings are irrefutable.</b>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich claims do you have trouble with? If you want to pretend to be scientific then try to be specific about what it is that you are talking about.
<b>And I should disregard the opinion of actual qualified experts because you say so?</b>
Not at all. You should make up your mind on the basis of the evidence. When I look at that evidence it tells us that the models that are calling for warming have been proven to be wrong over and over again, that many of the alarmist claims about hurricanes, droughts, snowless winters, and the extinction of corals and polar bears were never supported by evidence.
<b>Denialists like yourself don't do science because you are not scientists any more than the "experts" bought and paid for by the tobacco industry to claim cigarettes are harmless.</b>
Tobacco? Science is all about data. End of story. And the data is very clear about the fact that climate changes naturally and that we are actually in a pretty cool part of the interglacial. Try to learn how to think on your own rather than rely on people who have faith-based positions and have deceived you by spinning stories that are not true.
"And that it would remind readers that there is no consensus because there are thousands of research papers that tell a very different story than one being told by the IPCC and the alarmists. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you deniers (not skeptics) insist on trotting out this thoroughly disproven nonesense time and time again?
I'm sure my ten year old nephew could scribble something in crayon and you'd claim it was a "research paper" by someone in a climate related field, so long as it told you what you wanted to believe.
When you have peer reviewed papers published by qualified climatologists, then you will have a point.
Until then you are just another anti-science denialist who has bough, hook, line and sinker into the fossil fuel industry denialist memes.
"Which claims do you have trouble with?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEach and every one from start to finish is either an outright lie or deliberately misleading.
"You should make up your mind on the basis of the evidence."
The only evidence you have offered is your personal views; which in your mind is probably nothing less than the word of God.
" Try to learn how to think on your own rather than rely on people who have faith-based positions and have deceived you by spinning stories that are not true."
I do, which is why I have rejected denialists like yourself whose only offer of proof is blogs written by people who have been laughed out of their profession and "institutes" bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
VangelV,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of your statements are not correct. The "hockey stick" has been vindicated over and over again.
Deniers like to point to GISP2 data to refute the hockey stick and never seem to understand that all they are doing is cherry picking.
Here's the latest vindication of the hockey stick:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
It is also interesting that in all your opinions about the quality of climate models, you did not mention the ability in predicting ENSO cycles.
Marcher
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a consensus regarding ONLY that additional CO2 will warm the environment if all other conditions remain unchanged and nothing more. There is no consensus regarding the rate of change associated with additional CO2 unless one includes a very wide (meaninglessly large) margin of error. There is no consensus regarding a warmer world necessarily being worse overall for humanity over the long run.
Are you in denial of the truth?
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault has presented literally dozens of peer reviews articles that directly contradict your assertions.
When confronted with this, your response is simply to clam up and then wait for another article to spew the same none sense.
The only people in denial are denialists such as yourself.
Fraudulent? Do you have any credible evidence that Mann's work is fraudulent ? I suggest you refrain from indulging in non-scientific discussion of a scientific topic. Please keep your politics out of science, thank you .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWUWT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPathetic, Karst.
Although a rise in CO2 has been a result of an increase in temperature in the past, geologic history has no bearing on the present, as increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 lead to an increase in temp.; CO2 is the leading contributor to global temps in the geologic short-term that we are experiencing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To determine how well a model actually works it must be compared to observed conditions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is EXACTLY what hindcasting is!!! Holey baloney! Are you kidding me???
The margin of uncertainty on cimate sensitivity is 2 - 4.5C with a most likely value of 3C. Even if, in the UNLIKELY event that Earth's climate sensitivity is as low as 2C, that STILL means we need to cut GHG emissions dramatically YESTERDAY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CO2/temp lead/lag issue has been resolved in recent times...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the abstract to the paper http://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html
Geologic history still has some bearing on what's happening now, but most of these processes operate 10's to 1000's of times slower than what we are seeing with the climate today. Just preempting the denier cherry-picking that's sure to come from your comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" CO2 is used by plants as food and is not considered a pollutant. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...
OK, then please prove it to all of us by filling an air-tight room to a concentration of 4% CO2, and tell us how long an oxygen breathing animal can survive in that room.
Are you still unemployed and wondering why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading AND comprehension are required for most employment. One is no good without the other. Again "nuclear" means involving the nucleus or nuclei, and was part of the fundamentals required for comprehension, that you so sadly lacked. Hope this is helpful - good luck with the job search. GK
Are your points still so pathetically weak that all you can do is lob ad hominem attacks when your points are thoroughly torn apart?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently.
Especially sad and pathetic when you have to resort to this against one of the most civil posters on this site.
"when your points are thoroughly torn apart?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this... uhh... which points would you be referring to???
"one of the most civil posters on this site."
Just which part of Crammer's juvenile comment was civil and not a "ad hominem"... pray tell. The period. LOL GK
sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again you show that do not understand much about model development. Hindcasting involves an evaluation of specific characteristics within the climate system. It involves many assumptions of what conditions existed in the past for these specific conditions. That is all a part of a models devlopment process.
You then run the model to forecast future conditions. The hindcast is the modeller's best guess of what the system was doing in the past but there were no digital recorders persent to tell us how things really were for the vast number of variables.
The real system is much more complex than the assumptions in the hindcast. You run the model to try to foecast future conditions. You then compare the results of what the model predicted to observed conditions and work to adjust your model in order to get it to more accurately forecast fuure conditions.
Sault-- any modeller can make a model that will do a good hindcast of specific conditions. You just adjust your model to fit the conditions that you set up in the hindcast. Until your model accurately forecasts observed conditions you know that you hindcast is incomplete and that your model needs adjustment.
--keep laughing, but dispose of your beach-front property
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--deniers persist because to recognize even unrebuttable data [vide Hockey-Stick II] is to abandon an entire weltanschuung of interlocking views re the nature of evidence, the origins & purpose of society, the legitimacy of power & the destiny of man, not to speak of ideology-driven attitudes toward the marketplace, energy, employment, ecosystems, the nanny-state vs. individuation &, of course, the irrefragable commands of Genesis...the same sad pathology of logic-tight compartments is evident in racism, jingoism, anti-Semitism, etc; H. unsapiens can handle anything but verity.
Germanicus- You inappropriately call others who do not share your beliefs "deniers".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes the climate changes.
Do you deny that sea level is rising at an unalarming rate and that we have seen no acceleration associated with AGW? Your comment about selling beach front property???
The rest of your comment is difficult to see as meaningful
It's hard to think of a single post you have done that has not been torn apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your use of LOL in the same statement where you actually call someone else juvenile is absolutely precious. Thanks for demonstrating your lack of self-awareness. Hilarious.
Deniers of scientific consensus like your self are appropriately labelled deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry the truth hurts so you much.
I would think people demonstrating your ineptitude on economics would be more hurtful to you, given your lies about possessing an advanced degree in the field.
"--keep laughing, but dispose of your beach-front property"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're absolutely correct. Beachfront property is worthless. If any of you wish to dispose of ANY worthless beachfront property, I will quite generously offer 2 cents on the dollar for any such appraised property, sight unseen. I have committed investors, all lined up. Mr. Gore are you listening?? GK
Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not an ad hominem to criticize a persons ideas or their behavior. Once you begin to calling a person stupid and attacking them personally in an effort to refute their argument, it's an ad hominem. How does the question "Are you still unemployed and wondering why?" help your argument and refute my argument?
Your knowledge of climatology includes the belief that "CO2 IR backscatter IS the mechanism behind CO2's greenhouse effect." Is that not your belief?
You also seem to believe that IR absorption has something to do with nuclear reactions or the "nucleus" as you said in comment 41 (12:16 AM 3/22/13). I haven't figure out what your claim is other than your attempt to build a strawman of what you want others to believe about me.
Your statements are wrong. Telling you that you're wrong is not an ad hominem. Please quote what you believe to be an ad hominem. I can't help if you feel bad if I reject your ideas.
MARCHER,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your compliment. It is very difficult to know how do deal with some people. Should they be ignored? Some people who call themselves skeptics will at least be somewhat reasonable. Others will not.
For me, it depends on how busy I am at work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoasting pathological liars like Karst is a relaxing experience in that situation.
So, how do modellers understand reality without mathematics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, you're not even interested in knowing the truth. Who said ANYTHING about accelerating sea level rise being the determining factor whether climate change is real or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea levels are rising over 3mm per year globally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Mean_Sea_Level.svg
Do you know how many climate refugees that creates in the next 20 or 30 years? Do you know how much of that sea level rise was masked due to dam building and impoundments? Where are your projections concerning sea level once Greenland and Antarctica see more and more massive ice sheet disintegrations in the future? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS DENIER CLAPTRAP?
"For me, it depends on how busy I am at work."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think you will have to worry about it long. Your personal blogging throughout working hours, is considered by most companies/corporations as "time theft" and a reason for dismissal. It is only a matter of time before your supervisor realizes how much you have stole. Your work ethic deficiencies also reflect your respect for scientific ethics, as well. Good luck! GK
Given that you have been proven categorically wrong on virtually every statement you have made thus far, I feel more secure in my position than ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou lack of knowledge and presumption regarding others also serves to weaken your already poor arguments and marks you as not only a poor debater, but an ignorant one as well.
But it is always god for a laugh.
Now I've got a life to get back to, enjoy your apparent lack of one.
16. VangelV in reply to MARCHER 02:20 PM 3/21/13 writes in small part....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..How can it make sense to have climate change researchers claim that polar bears are in trouble when their numbers have gone up from around 5,000 in the late 1960s to more than 25,000 today? ....
The initial claim for the disappearing polar bears came from a Midwestern American university that had looked at a single small polar bear population in Alaska. The scientists involved obviously wouldn't know a polar bear if it bit them in the behind which it surely would if it had the chance. They released the results of the study as further absolute proof that global warming was happening with demonstrable catastrophic consequences.
Of course in the real world, as you pointed out, polar bears are thriving especially in Canada where most of their habitat is.
I wrote ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...Of course in the real world, as you pointed out, polar bears are thriving especially in Canada where most of their habitat is. ...
When I wrote ..where most of their habitat is.. I was referring to the areas with the largest numbers. Of course their range is massive and in total far surpasses the physical area that they occupy in Canada.