Dr. Richard Lindzen writes to me with news of this significant new paper saying “It has taken almost 2 years to get this out. “. Part of that problem appears to be hostile reviewers in earlier submissions to JGR, something we’ve seen recently with other skeptical papers, such as O’Donnell’s rebuttal to Steig et al (Antarctica is warming) where Steig himself inappropriately served as a reviewer, and a hostile one at that.
Hostile reviewers aside, the paper will now be published in an upcoming issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and I am honored to be able to be able to present it here. The authors state that:
“We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010).”
…
The present paper responds to the criticism, and corrects the earlier approach where appropriate. The earlier results are not significantly altered, and we show why these results differ from what others like Trenberth et al. (2010), and Dessler (2010) obtain.
So, while that may satisfy some critics, given the hostility shown to the idea that there is a low sensitivity to forcings, I’m sure a whole new crop of critics will spring up for this paper. The response to this paper in AGW proponent circles, like the feedback posited for Earth’s climate system, will surely be negative. Let the games begin.
Some highlights:
However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).
…
This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2
…
As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.
…
Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift.
Willis Eschenbach will no doubt find some interesting things in this paper, as it speaks of some of the same regulation mechanisms in the tropics as Willis has opined on here at WUWT. Here’s the Abstract and Conclusion, a link to the full paper follows:
==============================================================
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
Abstract:
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to
this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are
exaggerating climate sensitivity.
Conclusion:
We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010). First of all, to improve the statistical significance of the results, we supplemented ERBE data with CERES data, filtered out data noise with 3-month smoothing, objectively chose the intervals based on the smoothed data, and provided confidence intervals for all sensitivity estimates. These constraints helped us to more accurately obtain climate feedback factors than with the original use of monthly data. Next, our new formulas for climate feedback
and sensitivity reflect sharing of tropical feedback with the globe, so that the tropical region is now properly identified as an open system. Last, the feedback factors inferred from the atmospheric models are more consistent with IPCC-defined climate sensitivity
than those from the coupled models. This is because, in the presence of cloud-induced radiative changes altering SST, the climate feedback estimates by the present approach tends to be inaccurate. With all corrections, the conclusion still appears to be
that all current models seem to exaggerate climate sensitivity (some greatly). Moreover, we have shown why studies using simple regressions of ΔFlux on ΔSST serve poorly to determine feedbacks.
To respond to the criticism of our emphasis on the tropical domain (Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010), we analyzed the complete record of CERES for the globe (Dessler, 2010) (Note that ERBE data is not available for the high latitudes since the field-of-view is between 60oS and 60oN). As seen in the previous section, the use of the global CERES record leads to a result that is basically similar to that from the tropical data in this
study. The global CERES record, however, contains more noise than the tropical record.
This result lends support to the argument that the water vapor feedback is primarily restricted to the tropics, and there are reasons to suppose that this is also the case for cloud feedbacks. Although, in principle, climate feedbacks may arise from any
latitude, there are substantive reasons for supposing that they are, indeed, concentrated mostly in the tropics. The most prominent model feedback is that due to water vapor, where it is commonly noted that models behave roughly as though relative humidity
were fixed. Pierrehumbert (2009) examined outgoing radiation as a function of surface temperature theoretically for atmospheres with constant relative humidity. His results are shown in Fig. 13.
Specific humidity is low in the extratropics, while it is high in the tropics. We see that for extratropical conditions, outgoing radiation closely approximates the Planck black body radiation (leading to small feedback). However, for tropical conditions, increases in outgoing radiation are suppressed, implying substantial positive feedback. There are also reasons to suppose that cloud feedbacks are largely confined to the tropics. In the
extratropics, clouds are mostly stratiform clouds that are associated with ascending air while descending regions are cloudfree. Ascent and descent are largely determined by the large scale wave motions that dominate the meteorology of the extratropics, and for these waves, we expect approximately 50% cloud cover regardless of temperature (though details may depend on temperature). On the other hand, in the tropics, upper level clouds, at least, are mostly determined by detrainment from cumulonimbus towers, and cloud coverage is observed to depend significantly on temperature (Rondanelli and Lindzen, 2008).
As noted by LCH01, with feedbacks restricted to the tropics, their contribution to global sensitivity results from sharing the feedback fluxes with the extratropics. This led to inclusion of the sharing factor c in Eq. (6). The choice of a larger factor c leads to
a smaller contribution of tropical feedback to global sensitivity, but the effect on the climate sensitivity estimated from the observation is minor. For example, with c = 3, climate sensitivity from the observation and the models is 0.8 K and a higher value
(between 1.3 K and 6.4 K), respectively. With c = 1.5, global equilibrium sensitivity from the observation and the models is 0.6 K and any value higher than 1.6 K, respectively. Note that, as in LCH01, we are not discounting the possibility of feedbacks in the extratropics, but rather we are focusing on the tropical contribution to global feedbacks. Note that, when the dynamical heat transports toward the extratropics are taken into account, the overestimation of tropical feedback by GCMs may lead to even greater overestimation of climate sensitivity (Bates, 2011).
This emphasizes the importance of the tropical domain itself. Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift. Concerning the different sampling from the ERBE and CERES instruments, Murphy et al. (2009) repeated the Forster and Gregory (2006) analysis for the CERES and found very different values than those from the ERBE. However, in this
study, the addition of CERES data to the ERBE data does little to change the results for ΔFlux/ΔSST – except that its value is raised a little (as is also true when only CERES data is used.). This may be because these previous simple regression approaches include
the distortion of feedback processes by equilibration. In distinguishing a precise feedback from the data, the simple regression method is dependent on the data period, while our method is not. The simple regression result in Fig. 7 is worse if the model
integration time is longer (probably due to the greater impact of increasing radiative forcing).
Our study also suggests that, in current coupled atmosphereocean models, the atmosphere and ocean are too weakly coupled since thermal coupling is inversely proportional to sensitivity (Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998). It has been noted by Newman et al. (2009) that coupling is crucial to the simulation of phenomena like El Niño. Thus, corrections of the sensitivity of current climate models might well improve the behavior of coupled
models, and should be encouraged. It should be noted that there have been independent tests that also suggest sensitivities less than predicted by current models. These tests are based on the response to sequences of volcanic eruptions (Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998), on the vertical structure of observed versus modeled temperature increase (Douglass, 2007; Lindzen, 2007), on ocean heating (Schwartz, 2007; Schwartz, 2008), and on
satellite observations (Spencer and Braswell, 2010). Most claims of greater sensitivity are based on the models that we have just shown can be highly misleading on this matter. There have also been attempts to infer sensitivity from paleoclimate data (Hansen
et al., 1993), but these are not really tests since the forcing is essentially unknown given major uncertainties in clouds, dust loading and other factors. Finally, we have shown that the attempts to obtain feedbacks from simple regressions of satellite measured outgoing radiation on SST are inappropriate.
One final point needs to be made. Low sensitivity of global mean temperature anomaly to global scale forcing does not imply that major climate change cannot occur. The earth has, of course, experienced major cool periods such as those associated with ice ages and warm periods such as the Eocene (Crowley and North, 1991). As noted, however, in Lindzen (1993), these episodes were primarily associated with changes in the equatorto-
pole temperature difference and spatially heterogeneous forcing. Changes in global mean temperature were simply the residue of such changes and not the cause.
==============================================================
Dr. Lindzen has the full paper on his personal website here:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
This is the way that science is supposed to work. Listen to the criticisms, and address them where appropriate and refute them where not. Bravo.
Thank you! Is called science or common sense? Or both.
I think you are missing a dot between the 5 and the 0 in your highlight call-out.
“Models predict warming of from 1.5oC to 5oC and even more for a doubling of CO2”
REPLY: Thanks fixed, copy/paste issue from PDF – Anthony
Just a small practical point. I see that the “degree” symbol has been transposed to a letter “o” in some of the text, so for example in the Highlights we read “Models predict warming of from 1.5oC to 5oC and even more for a doubling of CO2”. This makes it look like “50degC” instead of 5 at a quick read. Might it be worth amending this so readers don’t get the wrong impression?
REPLY: Refresh, that copy/past issue from PDF has been fixed – Anthony
Anthony, you might want to change your highlights. Prof Lindzen and Dr Choi say on p 385:
“As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations”
This value of 0.7 C somewhat lower than the 1.0 C value that you highlighted, and is consistent with their previous result (0.5 C) and also Dr Spencer & Dr Braswell’s measurement (0.6 C).
My emphasis is in boldface. In my field I’ve been a modeller for 20 years, but observation beats modelling every time in my view.
REPLY: Good suggestion, I’ll add it – Anthony
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest. While we should be aware of it and start to think more critically about energy consumption and how we might make our economies more energy efficient, there is absolutely nothing to suggest we declare a kind of martial law over the economy and vilify anyone who gainsays the putsch.
Roll on Solar Cycle 24.
” Mushrooming of Desalination systems started in the Middle East during 1985. 2*C increase after wards. 2*C can be reduced by installing ZDS in Desalters & conc Deicers can be recoved & Planet Earth can be cooled down. How are you feelinv today in August? Yesterday there was snow in Nrw Zeland- in August “
Lets wait and see the quality of the criticisms. I don’t think its over yet, but there does seem to be something here for more people to start looking at in depth. Must find time to read this paper in full…
Wow – actual climate science.
Yet another document which won’t see the light of day in IPCC Fantasy 5.
If feedback was as severe as most alarmists believe/think/pretend, there would be evidence of it in the geological record, but unfortunately for them there is none. As Bruce in Newcastle says: “observation beats modelling every time”. Of course, Hansen, the Team etc. believe this to be climate heresy, second only to the concept of natural climate cycles.
The bottom line is that AGW is real, but it is of no great significance and definitely does not require a draconian response in the form of massive taxation and investment in expensive unreliable sources of alternative, ‘renewable’ energy, such as wind farms.
The big question to me: is anybody going to be game enough to apply this analysis to their model and share the results? I’m not going to hold my breath….
Regardless; congrats are in order for getting the paper out in what sounded like quite a hostile climate…
Ursus Augustus says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.
—————
So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?
Congratulations to the authors on getting their paper published. What happens next?
The paper will be scrutinised by the climate scientists, statisticians, mathematicians and other experts, and will be criticised or praised where appropriate. If others find merit in the paper, the work will be reproduced, and built on. It may even become the basis of a new paradigm of low sensitivity. If that happens, new explanations will be sought for all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity.
On the other hand, it may be found to be full of holes, in which case it will be forgotten about in science circles but will become an extra piece of evidence of the “global warming conspiracy” here in the blogosphere.
Remember to be skeptical, even of the work of skeptics.
So yet another published paper which suggests a warming in the region of 1.0 degrees Celsius or less for a doubling of CO2. Copenhagen and Cancun where about what action the world had to take to limit warming to 2.0 degrees Celsius. These papers, based upon observational empirical evidence, suggest that no action is required.
Perhaps we can finally put plant food behind us and concentrate on cleaning up REAL pollution and environmental damage.
It is interesting that the International Standard Atmosphere, used in aviation and presumably based on some global average over the surface and altitude, has a lapse rate in the lower levels about equal to the saturated adiabatic lapse rate. To me this indicates that convective cumulus dominate the troposphere. Not unexpected as the tropical regions, where there is lots of convection, have so much of the surface area. The tropics are the driver of the climate system. The rest is just consequences.
I hear the red alert sirens going off at the Real Climate Cave.
I look forward to them typing 5000 words of condescending drivel about some minor point that has absolutely no effect on Lindzen and Choi’s results.
Real science in action. It is good to see the words ‘observational result’ and good to see that a modeller, Bruce of Newcastle, has highlighted the fact. Thank you Bruce.
A decade of enlightenment has begun, after decades of untrammeled propaganda the BS meters of Joe public have kicked in. Prodded by the waste and stupid policies of government, the good Dr is and has always done real science. In Australia one of our state governments has called for a royal commission on the science of climate change, this is a body that you can not lie too, if found out you go to jail.
A royal commission is not a white wash but has almost unlimited powers within its mandate, the left press are far from impressed. Dr Lindzen”s name has been mentioned on Jo Nova”s site as a suitable person to talk to this body, I second the motion.
I imagine our government paid global warming carbon tax scientists are a little concerned.
About time.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
Congratulations to the authors on getting their paper published. What happens next?
“The paper will be scrutinised by the climate scientists, statisticians, mathematicians and other experts, and will be criticised or praised where appropriate. If others find merit in the paper, the work will be reproduced, and built on. It may even become the basis of a new paradigm of low sensitivity. If that happens, new explanations will be sought for all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity.”
John, is it possible it will be criticised and praised where inappropriate? Also, what are ” all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity’ Which observations are you thinking of?
Each doubling of CO2 does not have the same effect as this is a clear violation of the Beer lambert law. This IPCC BS has come about because some idiot doesn’t know the difference between absorbance and absorption.
Otherwise the first 20ppm could not be responsible for half the effect of CO2 now could it!
Two years to get published. I bet the criticisms are already being formatted by publications.
John B says:
Ursus Augustus says:
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others
over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made
out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.
—————
So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?
—————————————-
You beat me to it. How about ;
“There are a number of credible papers appearing, based on observation rather than modelling, that show CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.”
John B is right: let’s avoid using the word ‘consensus’. We criticise the warmists for using it, so we shouldn’t use it.
(this is not, however, a criticism of the main thrust of Ursus’ comment – I think Ursus is spot-on about not ruining our economy over the grossly exaggerated claims of the AGW crowd)
Joe Romm will be having a sh*t-fit about this.
You can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will commence at RC!
BTW R Gates, where are you? What have you got to throw at these results that are based on observational evidence?
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
Ursus Augustus says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm
“I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.”
—————
“So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?”
Scientifically, consensus is immaterial. Politically and economically, consensus, overwhelming consensus, is vital if ever sense is to prevail. The end of the argument is not near. We can expect a dogged rearguard action from the warmistas, so very many of whom depend on the AGW theory for their very livelihood.
So modeling is OK when it supports a skeptic position, but not OK when it doesn’t?
NicL says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:46 am
You beat me to it. How about ;
“There are a number of credible papers appearing, based on observation rather than modelling, that show CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.”
____________________________________
How about: “There is a recent trend in the peer reviewed litterature where new findings are increasingly questioning what has been dubbed “the scientific consensus” by a group of climate scientists, namely that atmospheric CO2 levels will spiral upward as a result of positive feedback effects leading up to imminent catastrophy for life on earth. New findings question these effects and suggest a muh more modest effect from CO2 on global temperature”
Any way you put it, it will suck for the RC CAGW team – so, mission accomplished, then.
There may have been some fear in the reviewers along with hostility.
——————–
John B,
Indeed, congratulations are in order for independents (a.k.a. skeptics) when something actually gets published that is not endorsed by the concensors of IPCC CAGWism. Celebration time, indeed! I think we are seeing a surge in independent papers and I anticipate there will be a veritable flood of them in the next several months. The IPCC will not be able to handle them.
I am sure if this recent Lindzen et al paper is found “full of holes” it will be treated in an equivalent manner as Mann’s hockey stick papers that were “full of holes”; science being unbiased and all that. Right?
Now I shall read the paper.
John
David A says:
August 17, 2011 at 3:42 am
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
“Also, what are ” all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity’ Which observations are you thinking of?”
He’s thinking of the “missing heat” in the oceans and the aerosol feedbacks which has magically appeared and disappeared at different times to make current warming match CAGW theory
Well isn’t this interesting. I’ve been pointing out for months that the models are gettting it wrong in the tropical ocean and have provided a link to a published study (Geophysical Reseach) Ocean Heat Budget in the Tropical Atlantic on several occasions the most recent of which was yesterday in the argument with Willis. The fact of the matter, plainly found in this study, is that LWIR is not a dominant factor in tropical ocean heat budget. This is (perhaps not simply for the layperson) explained by what actually happens when LWIR shines downward on the ocean surface. It doesn’t warm the water as one might intuitively believe it would. It simply raises the evaporation rate and the energy in the LWIR is translated into latent heat of vaporization and carried away from the ocean via that mechanism as quickly as it arrives. Once you understand that you then turn away from further analysis of ocean heating and instead focus on what happens due to the greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere above the ocean. As far as I can determine what happens is that instead of more surface heating you get more clouds. Clouds are warmer than the clear sky but they are also closer to the heat sink (the cold vacuum of outer space) and thus the radiative path to the sink is made easier because the greenhouse gases between the clouds and space which would otherwise be impeding radiation from the ocean surface making its way into space is now impeding radiation from the warm clouds from getting back to the ground. And of course more clouds reflect more sunlight away from the surface during the day.
So once again, when we accept the physical fact that you can’t heat a body of water from the top down with LWIR then all observations start neatly falling in place. Then once you’ve accepted the fact that LWIR from greenhouse gases don’t warm the ocean (or, for the pedenats, slow down the rate of cooling) then you move along to the continents where LWIR from GHGs actually does significantly slow down the rate of cooling because (duh) rocks have far different physical properties and radiative characteristics than water.
There’s more egg than Tyson Farms can produce in a year that is headed onto the faces of the people who got so much wrong about the effect of GHGs over the ocean when a rather shallow review of the physics of water and LWIR tells the story and clears up all the confusion.
@John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
“So, a ‘consensus’ is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?”
Wouldn’t you agree that a ‘scientific consensus’ is a nebulus something that is always subject to change, and that in some fields it changes quite often? Don’t you also feel that anyone who bets the farm and their grandchildren’s future on a ‘scientific consensus’ in a quickly changing scientific field is being rather foolish, especially if the people at the helm of such “changes” are not scientists but a bunch of ecotistical, filthy politicans? You don’t honestly believe that we know enough about “climate change” to bet the farm on do you? And we certainly don’t know enough to bet our grandchildren’s future either –even though the present economic situation kind’a, sort’a indicates we already have. Never trust a Boomer JohnB! Never trust a Boomer. Their worse than a room full of politicans and a mainstream Climeatologist or two.
Gavin Schmidt has been saying lately that the paleo data are more important than the recent observations. Now we know why.
How would one respond to his assertion?
NicL says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:46 am …….
“There are a number of credible papers appearing, based on observation rather than modelling, that show CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.”=====
yeah much better.
now try and get the fact , through to someone like…
this interviewever on abc australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/08/16/3294368.htm
@Pascvaks last, ref. cmt to JohnB
Boomers also confuse “their” with “they’re” and don’t generally spell well a’tal. But we were all taught to write cursive.
RobJM says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:08 am
“Each doubling of CO2 does not have the same effect as this is a clear violation of the Beer lambert law. This IPCC BS has come about because some idiot doesn’t know the difference between absorbance and absorption.
Otherwise the first 20ppm could not be responsible for half the effect of CO2 now could it!”
The LWIR absorptive properties of CO2 is both linear and logarithmic depending on concentration. It is linear in very low concentration and then quickly becomes logarithmic as concentration rises. This LWIR response has been known since the 1800’s when it was observed the good old fashioned way via experimental physics. You have to kind of wonder how much physics some of these climate boffins actually know when they don’t at know as much as physical scientists from 150 years ago knew. Pathetic. They all need to be sent back to school. High school to be more precise because that’s where you learn much of the physics that were discovered hundreds of years ago. Then you build upon that basic knowledge with more recent stuff. These guys are like trying to solve differential equations without first learning how to add and subtract.
John B:
It is not that a “consensus”, in-and-of-itself is bad. We have two main scenarios that we are dealing with. If a “consensus” has reached a wrong conclusion, then making policy and/or legislation BASED on that “consensus”, leads almost inevitibly to a bad conclusion.
If a “consensus” has reached a correct conclusion, then policy/legislation based on that “consensus” has a higher probability of reaching a beneficial conclusion. We were literally being told that we had to pass legislation on the basis of a false conclusion/consensus, i.e., that carbon dioxide controls average global temperature, and we were on the precipice of frying from all that CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere.
There has been a “consensus” that the IPCC, Goreites, Hansonites, GavinSchmittites have all reached the wrong conclusion.
I hope and pray that our “consensus” wins the day, and SOON!
Best regards,
Mark H.
How did this paper address the possibility that time to equilibrium is longer? I seems that a long equilibrium time might still allow high sensitivity on longer time scales. Any thoughts?
“Specific humidity is low in the extratropics, while it is high in the tropics.”
Generally this is true but I have operated a couple of solar furnaces in the desert of NM (about 32 deg N) where humidity is periodically high (especially during the summer where we experience monsoon conditions) and the normal incident pyrheliometer (NIP) reads a surface value of radiation (incoming SWR) as much as 230 watts/m^2 less than when humidity is much lower (in the Fall). Summer “clear” day solar noon readings at the surface are often 850 watts/m^2 versus Fall “clear” day solar noon readings at the surface of 1080 watts/m^2. Also several years ago at the peak of El Chicon’s (volcano) “dust” cloud we noted about 100 watts/m^2 decrease from “normal”. Our NIP was calibrated and was apparently good to about + or – 1%. “Clear” means no visible clouds.
I realize that most of the studies to date are using “on average” values but it might be useful to start gathering specific data in order to fine tune the effort. The devil seems to be in the details.
Bernie
Consensus in and of itself is not an evil condition. Consensus that flows from accurate and verifiable science is a natural event, in fact. If polled there would surely emerge a consensus that e=mc^2. The consensus is irrelevant in science but useful in non-scientific ways. If the science presented in this paper is accurate and verifiable and climate scientists are honest about their work, a defacto consensus will emerge and will again be pointless scientifically but useful in other ways.
When consensus exists to force wider acceptance of a view and those using it in that fashion are the consensual scientists who created the view then you have a case for fraudulent use of the influence of consensus.
Case point: “9 out of 10 doctors agree” <- A very common use of consensus to improve market position but not necessarily based on science, and not necessarily fraudulent. The doctors may agree smoking is bad for your health.
Now having said all that, the very term brings a stench into conversations regarding climate because it represents to many a clear attempt at fraud. What it can mean has been hijacked by what it has meant in the short history of climate discourse. It has become tainted – in fact the very idea of consensus is tainted and the above conversations express that. Hopefully this does not imply that any wide spread support for a rationale is now impossible to discuss in public because as mentioned, defacto consensus will always emerge with the truth.
From the conclusions (p. 387):
Nice to see that some scientist are stll normal—they correct their own work when it’s found wanting.
OK S.
What I don’t get is why everyone isn’t delighted with the possibility that the outcome of AGW isn’t as bad as we all thought. I mean who in the world is pleased about paying outrageous taxes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and a consequent prospect of grossly reduced living standards? Why wouldn’t everyone wish to see more research like this?
Isn’t there a major flaw in them only considering ocean surface temperature between 20oS to 20oN latitude and then looking at OLR.
Isn’t the temperature of the rest of the planet going to have a very big, unquantified, influence on the OLR?
Also doesn’t this slow response feedbacks?
I would argue the models are working exactly as they are supposed to. The increased hysteria and fear mongering that result from the output of these models is exactly what the Warmistas want and need.
I mean you need some data points, know matter how sketchy, to keep even the skankiest ponzi scheme going.
Keith says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:44 am
“The big question to me: is anybody going to be game enough to apply this analysis to their model and share the results? I’m not going to hold my breath….”
Each model is a product of the idiosyncracies found in the climate scientists and the programmers who created it. Models cannot be compared with one another, except through comparison of complete runs. Unlike physical theory, it does not make sense to ask if a particular hypothesis is found in all the models or if all of the models associate the same set of output numbers with that hypothesis. Such item by item analysis is impossible in models. The only question a modeler can ask by way of comparing models is whether he should make his model resemble another model more closely. So, all of the important responses to the article in question that are based on models will say, in so many words, that your model does not sufficiently resemble my model.
Scientific consensus leads to a theory. However theories are models of how the world works. They are only as good as they explain observations. When these fail, the model fails. The trick is to have models that produce results that can be observed. Otherwise they are theology.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
“On the other hand, it may be found to be full of holes, in which case it will be forgotten about in science circles but will become an extra piece of evidence of the “global warming conspiracy” here in the blogosphere.”
You really should not direct your ad hominems at me. (You do know what an ad hominem is, right?) You just implied that everyone who is proud to comment on WUWT uses articles whose flaws have been established beyond a doubt to further our paranoid view that there is a malevolent “global warming conspiracy.” At best, you owe a major apology to everyone associated with WUWT. You should be banned from this site.
“Remember to be skeptical, even of the work of skeptics.”
OK, son, here is your opportunity: explain what scepticism is. Expect to be graded. Of course, you cannot do this because you are totally incapable of giving an articulate account of scientific method, just like every other critic of this site.
Had you been a blessed and fortunate child, you would by now have found yourself awake to the enormous engine of genuine scepticism that WUWT is. If you want to learn about scepticism in the internet age, WUWT is the number one place to be. Maybe the only place to be. You darn well will not learn about scepticism or scientific method or even that they exist at Real Climate or its “fellow travelers.” They dare not speak of scientific method for the obvious reason that not one thing they have produced satisfies the standards of scientific method.
There’s a reason why the ‘mainstrean consensus’ emerged so indefatigably with this ‘new kid on the block’ theory and it had little to do with the veracity of the science behind it. Its roots lay way back in 1969 with the Appollo moon mission when a generation shared that view of earth from the porthole and the Spaceship Earth paradigm was born. Prior to that the earth was a very big place with Poles and Everests to conquer and still is at village level, but that was all about to change as our satellites began to circle the globe and map its every peak and trough, up to the current day with Google Earth at digital man’s fingertips. That process would slowly but surely change generational perspectives and the notion of Gaia was thrust into the consciousness as our satellites tracked and mapped the impact of mankind and his activities. A political vacuum in the making awaiting the inrush of any higher atmospherics and in the left it found just that.
In the eighties with free market capitalism in full flight with Maggie and Ronnie of ‘tear down that wall’ fame, the left were to suffer their ideological nadir with the fall of the Wall. With Perestrioka driven by worker Solidarnosc as the cause, their total belief system was in tatters and all they could do was retreat into the political shadows and lick their wounds. Where to for a beaten ideology with its ethos condemned to wander about the political wilderness? Club of Rome and the threat of another Ice Age had come and gone but in AGW theory the light shone on the way back and the new Long March began in earnest. Here at last was proof positive that capitalism was the root of all evil because it was going to fry the grandkids unless of course they took control of the commanding heights again and sorted out the globe’s problems with their UN vision splendid and the grand plan.
Quite a movement really when you look back on it all but the message also needed to find a ready home among Spaceship Earthers until as usual their prescriptive policies were found completely wanting in efficacy, culminating in the futility of Copenhagen. A stunning example of Blairs Law perhaps, whereby ‘the world’s multiple idiocies will come together in one giant useless force’. Well if that’s a bit harsh, then certainly the sublime irony of a bunch of professional Maoists telling a gaggle of amateur Westen leftists- ‘In your dreams monitoring us and telling us what to do’. With that sudden freefall from the commanding heights and after burning so much previous political capital on failed policy prescriptions, it was inevitable attention would turn back to the veracity of their consensus science and here we all are. There’s nothing like a GFC and subsequent economic storm clouds to propel a more judicious look at the science. What, us fall for wild doomsday scenarios on some flimsy, johnny come lately theory and computer modelling? Perish the thought! We’re all much more learned and discerning than to fall for the human hubris and folly of our less educated forbears.
It’s right about now the ancestors have wry smiles while they’re thinking- Never suspect conspiracy when universal education, computers, human hubris and folly will do.
@RobJM
“Each doubling of CO2 does not have the same effect as this is a clear violation of the Beer lambert law. This IPCC BS has come about because some idiot doesn’t know the difference between absorbance and absorption. Otherwise the first 20ppm could not be responsible for half the effect of CO2 now could it!”
Please actually read the IPCC report. Their formula for the change in forcing from additional CO2 absolutely accounts for the logarithmic impact of increasing concentrations :
(http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm).
I don’t even think that Lindzen disputes this formula (5.35 log C/C0). His argument is with the climatic response to the forcing from doubled CO2, not with the magnitude of that forcing. If you are going to spout rumors that you don’t even fact check, you may want to reconsider who you are calling the idiots.
@Bruce from Newcastle
“In my field I’ve been a modeller for 20 years, but observation beats modelling every time in my view.”
Your point is a fair one. But, I want to add an important qualification: What Lindzen is (legitimately) calling an “observational result”, is not a direct observation in a literal sense. Like any other measurement of climate sensitivity, it has to be *inferred* from direct observation, using some sort of theoretical model. The results will therefore depend on the author’s particular choice of assumptions. I’m not trying to denigrate Lindzen’s paper in the slightest. After all, this is how these sorts of things get done. I just wanted to put it in context for the sake of those who don’t believe anything with the word “model” attached to it. Also, it should be pointed out that (so far) the bulk of observation-based climate sensitivity measurements have yielded higher sensitivities. We’ll have to wait and see….
@DCA says:August 17, 2011 at 6:23 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
He may be right about paleo records IF but only IF these were accurately recorded and IF and only IF they did not rely upon some proxy which is claimed in some way to evidence what conditions were like.
The fact is that paleo records are uncertain and we do not know whatr they show. For sure some may provide evidence of general rough and ready pointers but they simply lack accuracy and precision and are open to too much subjective interpretation.
Computer models, like other computer software, do what they are programmed to do. It’s not wonder that the models show increased CO2 causes warming because that’s how they are programmed.
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:46 am
“So modeling is OK when it supports a skeptic position, but not OK when it doesn’t?”
If you are going to criticize the efforts of modelers, you have to talk about models. A main conclusion of the paper is that “the models” show sensitivity that is set too high.
Surely, you do not believe that the authors are offering a model as the true model and calling for rejection of the other models.
@Baxter 75: I think they want to repent their “sins” it’s some kind of religious thing.
Richard Saumarez says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:14 am
“Scientific consensus leads to a theory. However theories are models of how the world works.”
False and False. I regret that I do not have time to explain these matters once again. In brief, a model is an analytic tool that can be used to do analytic work. A physical theory is a synthetic tool that organizes what we know about a particular part of physical existence and can predict and explain novel phenomena (hence the word ‘synthetic’). A model cannot substitute for a physical theory, unless you have chosen to limit your physical theory to the past.
Friends:
So, Lindzen & Choi have re-assessed their work and – having taken account of all criticisms – they conclude:
“As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations”
Their revised estimate of 0.7 K for a doubling of CO2 is similar to their original finding which was that climate sensiivity for a doubling of CO2 is 0.5 K.
Even more interesting is that whenever people obtain an “observational result” for climate sensitivity they find it is less than 1K for a doubling of CO2. As illustration, I again point to the 8 different “natural experiments” of Idso. The abstract of his paper published in 1998 can be read at
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
together with a link to the original paper. He concluded:
“Best estimate 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
OK, Idso’s value of about 0.37 K is about half the Lindzen & Choi estimate of 0.7 K for a doubling of CO2, but both are much less than the typically more than 1K use in climate models. Indeed, all “observational results” for climate sensitivity are less than 1 K for a doubling of CO2. And, importantly, anything less than 1 K for a doubling of CO2 would mean the effect on climate of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration would be so trivial that it could not be detected..
Perhaps we are starting to home-in on a true value for climate sensitivity which will result in a genuine “scientific consensus” instead of the faux ‘consensus’ that has been used to obscure results of genuine scientific enquiry.
Richard
Coincidentally I have just started to read ‘The Road to Reality’ by Roger Penrose. Here’s a quote from page 13 – he’s talking about mathematics:
“Do we mean ‘agreed by all’, for example, or ‘agreed by those who are in their right minds’, or ‘agreed by all those who have a Ph. D. in mathematics’ (not much use in Plato’s day) and who have a right to venture an ‘authoritative’ opinion? There seems to be a danger of circularity here; for to judge whether or not someone is ‘in his or her right mind’ requires some external standard. So also does the meaning of ‘authoritative’, unless some standard of an unscientific nature such as ‘majority opinion’ were to be adopted (and it should be made clear that majority opinion, no matter how important it may be for democratic government, should in no way be used as the criterion for scientific acceptability).”
Pascvaks says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:32 am
“Boomers also confuse “their” with “they’re” and don’t generally spell well a’tal. But we were all taught to write cursive.”
Yeah, and the failure to write cursive brings with it a deficiency in humanity and another in efficiency. The school administrators responsible for this cultural tragedy have a special place prepared for them you know where. Spelling is somewhat like accent.
My top 10:
1) ROTFLMAO
2) Buy some Carbon Credit Certificates for my kid’s kid’s kids to have for show and tell.
3) Realize he’s serious and feel sorry for him; his 15 minutes of fame is turning into infamy, that’s gotta be tuff stuff.
4) Wonder how he can mentally justify trumping observation with what basically amounts to guesswork at best and intentional fraud at worst.
5) Wonder how long it will be before a global paleo-climatological record that is scientifically sound is published. (i.e. one that doesn’t endeavor to mislead by minimizing MWP, LIA, etc.)
6) Wonder what the next impending global environmental disaster that requires the immediate termination of fossil fuel use will be.
7) Wonder how long it will take to get climate models that are realistic.
8) Send “M&M”, Lindzen, Watts, etc. etc. thank you notes.
9) Get out the popcorn in anticipation of all the cussing CAGW advocates will be doing over the next few years while they attempt to salvage their cause.
10) Look forward to being able to watch shows on the Discovery Channel again.
Matt:
At August 17, 2011 at 7:33 am you say;
“But, I want to add an important qualification: What Lindzen is (legitimately) calling an “observational result”, is not a direct observation in a literal sense. Like any other measurement of climate sensitivity, it has to be *inferred* from direct observation, using some sort of theoretical model.”
Oh dear! That is really lame and is a misrepresentation of measurement theory. Indeed, you admit that Lindzen “legitimately” says the finding of Lindzen & Choi is an observational result.
But, according to your statement there is nothing that can be called “a direct observation in a literal sense”. For example, a temperature indicated by a calibrated mercury and glass thermometer “is not a direct observation in a literal sense” because “it has to be *inferred* from direct observation, using some sort of theoretical model.”
Lindzen & Choi did a measurement and obtained a result. State any error you can find in their measurement method and/or their measurent equipment. But do not try to denigrate their work with sophistry that you pretend is “an important qualification”.
Richard
Lets clear something up concerning consensus.
Consensus is totally irrelevant to science and to what is true and what is false. This should be easily agreed by all.
However, when any action or policy is proposed, a consensus must be reached on action, as it affects many people, in diverse lands. These are judgment calls and all peoples must judge the merit of such calls.
For instance, if actions of climate control were executed, in order to maintain an “acceptable” climate in Florida, it may involve reducing Canada’s average temperatures by 5 or 10 degrees. Should Canadians not have a say in such action and perhaps the power of veto? What about northern Europe and the Scandinavian countries? Shouldn’t we all have a say in things that will definitely affect food supplies?? Shouldn’t we all have a say, in the definition of “acceptable”.
Those who cannot discern the proper role for consensus, are continuously muddying up the real and actual empirical water. This is a great disservice to Man. GK
This paper asserts that the models’ coupling of the atmosphere and ocean is too weak. I find this plausible. The following analysis suggests that the impact of the trade winds and westerlies on the mixing of heat into the ocean is not adequately accounted for:
http://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/ocean_variance
To correct Bruce of Newcastle…
Bruce inserted an extra “than” into the quote from the paper.
The quote should be “likely greater than the possibilities”
(as opposed to “likely greater than than the possibilities”)
This paper will not matter a bit to the true believers. The pillars of their temple are crashing around them, but they still remain unshaken in their beliefs. When they do accept the inevitable reality, there will be a massive upwelling of anger from their camp as they come to grips with the fraud and deceit with which they were led astray.
Woe be to the deceivers.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences = Another respectable journal not controlled or contaminated by overly opinionated scientists hell bent on getting their way… Even if their conclusions may be in error and exaggerated.
(Note – I did not use ad-homs, call them liars, or frauds, or corrupt… they simply have too much control of the peer review process and tilt the journal output to echo their own scientific conclusions)
I’m surprised at the range of errors: 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels) Does this mean that Dr. Lindzen considers it possible that CO2 may have a cooling effect? I do, since the main observable since the beginning of the CO2 age has been cooling of the Stratosphere and there is nothing except computer models to prevent this cooling from propagating down the the surface and offsetting any surface warming from backscattered radiation. I believe there has been warming, though, but mainly from UHI, land use, and direct heating from SUVs, limited and harmless.
Anthony,
I may not have been clear in my previous comment.
The quote in your post currently reads:
“likely greater than than the possibilities”
when it should read (as Lindzen’s paper does):
“likely greater than the possibilities”
Trivial, I know, but also true.
“”””” The most prominent model feedback is that due to water vapor, where it is commonly noted that models behave roughly as though relative humidity
were fixed. Pierrehumbert (2009) examined outgoing radiation as a function of surface temperature theoretically for atmospheres with constant relative humidity. His results are shown in Fig. 13. “””””
Well I suppose that if Peter Humbug can keep relative humidity absolutely constant as a function of surface Temperature; and this in a “model” that is supposed to be all about “feedbacks”, then I suppose he can also make up his own laws of Physics, with which to analyse the fictitious behavior of earth’s climate system.
Why not try using the same set of laws of Physics, that Mother Gaia uses, when she decides what earth’s climate shall be.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to show that the relative humidity in earth’s atmosphere over ice at zero deg C, is not the same, as it is over boiling water at 100 deg C.
Ergo, the relative humidity for earth’s atmosphere, CANNOT be constant, independent of surface Temperature.
So what other Physics fictions does Peter assume ?
Gary Swift – politicians love long time scales, so that might be a face saving way out for our governments. I say we take 500 years of good observations and revisit AGW then. Lets argue about the quality and distribution of the measurements, not models and historical “reconstructions”.
DCA says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:23 am
Gavin Schmidt has been saying lately that the paleo data are more important than the recent observations. Now we know why.
How would one respond to his assertion?
#######
first you have to understand that Lindzen is actually estimating the TCR or transient climate response. That’s probably the bit that everyone here missed. The fast reponse can be thought of as the climate’s quick reaction to a doubling. You increase C02 and you see what the response is.. in the short term. That’s about all you can get from observational studies. Input: response.
we can to a first order calculate this from first principles and get something close to Lindzen’s answer ( has nothing to do with C02.. just what is the response to an additional watt of input)
The ECR or equillibrium climate response is what happens over longer periods of time and includes those processes that take longer to develop, like changes in albedo. The ECR takes hundreds of years. When people talk about sensitivity they are talking about the ECR.
The observation record is too short to a good estimate of the ECR. You get a nice lower bound however.
To estimate the ECR you have two choices: paleo and modelling. So hansen looks at the million year response and estimates the sensitivity as 3C.
Imagine you slam your pedal to the floor. Then you take a short snap shot of your acceleration
at the begining of your run or anywhere in the run. How well can you estimate the Total system response to that forcing. That is, how well can you estimate your final velocity? err not too well
People are mislead by the simple word observation. The thing being observed here is not the
ECR. He’s comparing the TCR from observations to the ECRs of climate models.
two entirely different beasts.
for some background on TCR read this
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/28/6-transient-response-to-the-well-mixed-greenhouse-gases/
“”””” Theo Goodwin says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:53 am
Richard Saumarez says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:14 am
“Scientific consensus leads to a theory. However theories are models of how the world works.”
False and False. I regret that I do not have time to explain these matters once again. In brief, a model is an analytic tool that can be used to do analytic work. A physical theory is a synthetic tool that organizes what we know about a particular part of physical existence and can predict and explain novel phenomena (hence the word ‘synthetic’). A model cannot substitute for a physical theory, unless you have chosen to limit your physical theory to the past. “””””
Well Theo, I don’t know how YOU rationalize ANY difference between a THEORY, and a MODEL.
To me, a THEORY is simply a description of the properties that the MODEL is endowed with; by those who created the model in the first place. Both are equally fictitious; as are all the mathematical tools that have been created to manipulate the model, in that nothing in any of that actually exists in the real universe.
We can “observe” by any of a whole array of means, what we believe the real universe is doing; and has done in the past; and we can artificially create our models and their descriptive theories, so that they can be shown to behave in some way as close to what we perceive the real universe behaves; but those theories and models are not substitutes for the observations of the real universe.
Of course, we ca use our theories to predict (sometimes quite precisely) how the model will behave in the future; or what the outcome would be, if we performed an experiment with our model, that has never been performed. We like it when some analagous experiment that we perform in the real world, results in observations of an apparent behavior of the real universe, that appears to us to be similar to that predicted of the model.
When that doesn’t turn out to be the case, then we try to devise a new model (and theory) that is a better match to what we observe in the real world.
The real world itself is far too complex for us to predict the future behavior; or result of some as yet never performed experiment.
It would be very helpful if some diligent person could provide a listing of all the relevant sceptical peer reviewed papers that have been published and not refuted that demonstrate that the IPCC’s estimate of CO2 sensitivity is too high.
The reason that I am asking is that I want to send an e:mail to every Australian MP and Senator that will inform them that the emerging science is demonstrating that the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is more like 1 deg C rather than the IPCC’s claimed 3.5 deg C.
Providing a detailed list of relevant references will enable the MPs and Senators to direct informed question to the Government’s scientific advisers – the Chief Scientist, Will Steffen, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, CSIRO, and the BOM.
The response of politicians in Australia to questions posed to them about the science has been to say that they have no option but to rely on the advice of their scientific advisers. The politicians argue that they are not scientists.
One of the great travesties of life is that man is a rationally irrational being. Often times being correct through a gut ‘intuitive’ feeling in response to empirical data. It is interesting to see that this thread has become more a comment on the approach of skepticism rather than one on this paper. Which is philosophical in nature and this makes it fun. So I will add in my opinion as it is all I have to offer 😉
It is only through the thorough vetting of ideology in which we can figure out truth. Often times this means adopting a point of view that falls in line with previous held beliefs and satisfies our own understanding of how the world works. In terms of computer programming this is a large list of if/then statements that represents the ethos of being. Each idea encountered must be run against the if/else/then statements in order to be analyzed. If at some point a statement is met that does not meet the requirement for understanding it is either rejected immediately ( most likely response ) or sent to a sub routine for analysis and parsing.
Thankfully the human condition allows for the rewriting of code, this is done through a subroutine in which an analysis of the if/then/else statements are analysed, some people have highly trained subroutines to do this, others are so rarely used that the few times something gets to this subroutine can have catastrophic effects to the ethos of the individual.
In the CAGW vs the NCGW crowd ( Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming vs Natural Cyclical Global Warming ) each side has a set of understanding and ‘line of code’ if I can borrow my fathers dubbing of this systematic approach of understanding human belief that causes them to be skeptical of one another’s work. My own line of code is such that I simply have an issue with correlation and causation having been burned far too many times by the two in business and scientific decisions to accept it as fact. By the same token I have a healthy understanding that CO2 is a gas that ‘traps’ heat in greater abundance than an atmosphere without said additional CO2. This causes skeptisim of both sides though I must admit the conclusions reached by CAGW seem far too, perhaps the word is ‘alarmist’ for me to take it as serious science. Providing only negatives and no upsides to the addition of a substance that may well be of use to mankind.
This is another one of my beliefs, if the only news is bad news than someone is holding something back in order to accomplish a desired outcome. Now please note these are beliefs brought upon by observation and thoughtful reflection which may turn out to be little more than bunk. Goodness knows I am wrong frequently about any number of subjects. I love what Keynes said on the subject in regards to his own work ( goodness how I wish he was alive today I wonder what he would make of what we did to his theories, odds are he would be first to chuck them ) “When the facts change I change my mind”
Since the ONLY reaction from the AGW crowd has been doom and gloom it adds a great deal to my skepticism about their science. If they reported good and bad consequences to the result set I would be more willing to take what they say as science, as it is all I hear is the devastation that will be wrought.
This paper seems to simply be a critique of someone else’s science with additional modification based on others critique of their critique. This being the case it simply places a postulation about the possible consequence of relying on a feedback effect that may be exaggerated.
Anyway thanks for letting me join in the fray of simply voicing thought and opinion. I personally prefer economics to climate science as it has a greater area for belief involved. Oh sure there are formula and explanations of formula but in the end all economics are is the explanation as to why people choose what they do via limited resources and unlimited desires. Which is a fun exercise in futility as desire is as fleeting as the science that studies it.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
Congratulations to the authors on getting their paper published. What happens next?
The paper will be scrutinised by the climate scientists, statisticians, mathematicians and other experts, and will be criticised or praised where appropriate. If others find merit in the paper, the work will be reproduced, and built on. It may even become the basis of a new paradigm of low sensitivity. If that happens, new explanations will be sought for all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity.
=================================================================
John, I like the thought…… I just wished it reflected reality. It will be scrutinized and criticized regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. There are countless examples of studies being dismissed on entirely fallacious reasoning……. visit the McShane/Wyner rejoinder for examples.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
Ursus Augustus says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.
—————
So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?
Yes, in the sense that an appeal to “consensus” or “mainstream consensus” is another one of the main unscientific arguments Climate Science makes in support of its [non] hypotheses. In other words, given that Climate Science has tried to redefine the rules of the game away from the practice of real science, it is allowable to defeat Climate Science on its own terms, at its own game.
But as “Geoff Shorten references: August 17, 2011 at 7:59 am” above, the term “consensus” must first be defined, something which Climate Science never does – unless you count the self-serving, untethered and nearly incoherent postulate that “Only Climate Scientists can speak about Climate Science” as ‘sensical’, for example, such that no one who is not a “Climate Scientist” can even mention or repeat the postulate!
Instead, Climate Science and its multiple followers and “stakeholders” only keep repeating something like, “There is a consensus about CO2 = CAGW [and we’re all gonna die if we don’t do something really stupid before it’s too late!] ” – which is close to the standard set by, “The Monkeys know it’s true because they always say it’s true.” – Mogli, The Jungle Book movie.
However, the very vacuum Climate Science specifically engineered concerning the meaning of “consensus” left other people free to define “consensus”! So I’ve claimed, for example, that it must involve the numbers of “scientists”, somehow reasonably defined, signing specific statements about the CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses”, taken at face value.
At which point Climate Science loses their own “consensus” game by at least about 10,000 to 75!
Theo Goodwin says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:29 am
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
“On the other hand, it may be found to be full of holes, in which case it will be forgotten about in science circles but will become an extra piece of evidence of the “global warming conspiracy” here in the blogosphere.”
You really should not direct your ad hominems at me. (You do know what an ad hominem is, right?) You just implied that everyone who is proud to comment on WUWT uses articles whose flaws have been established beyond a doubt to further our paranoid view that there is a malevolent “global warming conspiracy.” At best, you owe a major apology to everyone associated with WUWT. You should be banned from this site.
“Remember to be skeptical, even of the work of skeptics.”
OK, son, here is your opportunity: explain what scepticism is. Expect to be graded. Of course, you cannot do this because you are totally incapable of giving an articulate account of scientific method, just like every other critic of this site.
Had you been a blessed and fortunate child, you would by now have found yourself awake to the enormous engine of genuine scepticism that WUWT is. If you want to learn about scepticism in the internet age, WUWT is the number one place to be. Maybe the only place to be. You darn well will not learn about scepticism or scientific method or even that they exist at Real Climate or its “fellow travelers.” They dare not speak of scientific method for the obvious reason that not one thing they have produced satisfies the standards of scientific method.
—————————–
Yes, I know what an ad hominem is, and I avoid them. And don’t call me son, I’m 53 years old. I know all about skepticism, having been actively skepticising (yes, I know that is not a word) acupuncture, homeopathy, creationism, and all manner of claptrap. My point here is this, there are people who will welcome and go on to cite this paper simply because they like its conclusion, irrespective of its validity. That is not skepticism. To such people, any criticism of the paper will be seen as merely proof that “The Team” are up to no good. I trust you are not one of those people, but you cannot deny they exist.
Bernie McCune says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:44 am
————————-
A very heartening comment Bernie. Thank you. I have mentioned many times, as a non-scientist, that I have noticed, in my global travels, that tropical daytime clear air temperatures are usually less than desert daytime temperatures and thus humidity, water vapour, H20 molecules, are a solar SHIELD in the daytime rather than a “greenhouse gas” at nightime. Simply compare the radiative energy levels at the specified response wavelengths for H2O between day and night.
You mention a piece of equipment, a normal incident pyrheliometer (NIP), this sound like a handy gadget to have. Any links on design operation and usage methods? Many thanks.
“steven mosher says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
first you have to understand that Lindzen is actually estimating the TCR or transient climate response. That’s probably the bit that everyone here missed.”
Agreed. From farther up in the thread:
“Gary Swift says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:41 am
How did this paper address the possibility that time to equilibrium is longer? I seems that a long equilibrium time might still allow high sensitivity on longer time scales. Any thoughts?”
To be fair, there are some signs that the equilibrium lapse rate isn’t as long as a hundred years. If 80% of the efffect happens almost instantly, then the other 20% takes 500 years, then Lindzen could have a point. I think it’s clear that it’s at least a two stage process, with some portion happening quickly and some other portion happening on a longer time scale, but that ratio is debatable as well as the time scale for each part. It’s certainly broken into a lot more than two parts though. Uhhhgg. That makes my head hurt just thinking about it.
steven mosher says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
The ECR or equillibrium climate response is what happens over longer periods of time and includes those processes that take longer to develop, like changes in albedo. The ECR takes hundreds of years. When people talk about sensitivity they are talking about the ECR.
The observation record is too short to a good estimate of the ECR. You get a nice lower bound however.
To estimate the ECR you have two choices: paleo and modelling. So hansen looks at the million year response and estimates the sensitivity as 3C.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
So time scales on the order of hundreds of years are needed for observations to confirm the AGW theory. Hmm. Good for grants in the short term. In the absence of measurement, we are stuck with using erroneous models and ‘measuring’ something from the ‘before time’ using proxies or other models/estimates.
Stephen Mosher said “He’s comparing the TCR from observations to the ECRs of climate models.
two entirely different beasts.”
So, to be clear, are you saying the paper is fundamentally flawed?
Ja, Ja.
The problem I have with this paper is that it starts with:
It is generally accepted that in the absence of feedback, a doubling of CO2 will cause a forcing of deltaQ= 3.7 W/m2…..
On this everyhting hangs….
But how was this determined?
How much radiative cooling (mostly by re-radiating near IR and IR radiation) and how much radiative warming is caused by the CO2? How were those experiments done?
and where is are the test results?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
mondo says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:56 am
It would be very helpful if some diligent person could provide a listing of all the relevant sceptical peer reviewed papers that have been published and not refuted that demonstrate that the IPCC’s estimate of CO2 sensitivity is too high.
——–
Here is a full list of such papers:
Now, whether the refutations are valid is another question.
Here we see more confusion from Dr. Lindzen. One big question I’ve not seen him address. If the feedback is negative, that feedback would also work to minimize any cooling due to natural causes. So, Dr. Lindzen, tell us how it was possible for the Ice Ages to begin after the last Interglacial and how was it possible that all those glaciers which buried Eastern Canada and parts of the US as far south as NYC and Boston melted later? Inquiring minds want to know.
@Mosher
“Imagine you slam your pedal to the floor. Then you take a short snap shot of your acceleration
at the begining of your run or anywhere in the run. How well can you estimate the Total system response to that forcing. That is, how well can you estimate your final velocity? err not too well”
Actually, that’s completely incorrect. If you know the right variables (current speed, current acceleration, frictional forces), you can easily take any snap shot of acceleration and compute the final velocity: that’s basic physics 101. In fact, I DID that in my physics 101.
The same is true of climate. If you know the TCR, and you know how that interplays with the other variables, you can compute the final temperature (velocity) at any time point, and for any changes in those other variables that may or may not occur.
So actually, I have to completely disagree with you. If we know how climate works well enough, all we need to know is the TCR to know the ECR.
Steve Mosher says “Lindzen is actually estimating the TCR or transient climate response. ”
This is an important observation. We should also remember that what he extracted from the model responses was the TCR over the same timeframe.
To the extent that the models have the correct TCR to ECR ratio, then the excessive TCR noted by Linzen will also be reflected as too high of equilibrium climate response in the model.
Hansen’s 2011 whitepaper, Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications, has an interesting and very readable section on the climate response function vs. time.
I don’t fully understand the implications of Lindzen’s methodology, but at first glance it appears that his result is independent of the length of the time segments used for delta-SST and delta-flux. If my understanding is correct, then he has figured out the transient sensitivity that corresponds to the 10 year or or 100 year breakpoints on Hansen’s figure 9 in “Energy Imbalance and Implications” whitepaper. In that range the climate response is about 50% of the equilibrium response.
In other words, the TCR of 0.7 C per doubling that Lindzen observed corresponds to about 1.4 C per doubling ECR.
steven mosher:
At August 17, 2011 at 9:53 am you say;
“first you have to understand that Lindzen is actually estimating the TCR or transient climate response.”
and
“The ECR or equillibrium climate response is what happens over longer periods of time and includes those processes that take longer to develop, like changes in albedo. The ECR takes hundreds of years. When people talk about sensitivity they are talking about the ECR.”
and
“To estimate the ECR you have two choices: paleo and modelling. So hansen looks at the million year response and estimates the sensitivity as 3C.”
OK. I could quibble with all of that, but here I will accept it as being true.
What “takes hundreds of years” has no relevance to human activity. People adapt – and always have adapted – to such slow changes without noticing they are doing it.
And the “million year response” is totally irrelevant: we will probably have an ice age before then.
At issue is
(a) the climate sensitivity appropriate for inclusion in climate models ‘projecting’ coming decades, and that is clearly the TCM and NOT the ECM
and
(b) whether immediate mitigation options are required: a low TCM indicates they are not.
Furthermore, the actions of Hansen in calling for immediate mitigation options on the basis of “the million year response” is – to say the least – reprehensible.
Richard
I am beginning to think that even Lindzen and friends are wrong. i dont believe C02 has ANY + effect on temperatures because all the extra heat is probably lost anyway refer to Spencer and Braswell. The sun controls the rest it so B***** obvious.
“Ged says:
August 17, 2011 at 10:53 am
So actually, I have to completely disagree with you. If we know how climate works well enough, all we need to know is the TCR to know the ECR”
But we don’t know the equilibrium time. In the car analogy, this would be like not knowing the horsepower and slope of the road. What if your snapshot was taken before the crest of a hill? How good would your physics 101 calculation be if you didn’t know that?
Steve Mosher says “He’s comparing the TCR from observations to the ECRs of climate models.
two entirely different beasts. ”
This statement I disagree with. In section 5 of his paper he used essentially the same method to extract sensitivity from the model runs as he did from the observed SST and flux data.
While the sensitivities calculated this way correspond to neither the ECR nor the IPCC “70 years at 1%/yr CO2 increase” transient sensitivity, the table 4 in Lindzen’s paper lists model sensitivities calculated the same way as he did with the observations. Those model sensitivities are significantly higher than what is observed.
One can argue that what Lindzen observed is not relevant and the fact that the models are overly sensitive when calculated in this manner, but it definitely is not a case of Lindzen comparing TCR to ECR.
One could make the argument that all that Lindzen has shown is that the models do not have enough coupling between the atmosphere and the ocean, but increasing that coupling would decrease both TCR and ECR.
Matt says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:33 am
Thanks, Matt, for some good points. For this one, however … citation? Here’s one for a start … obviously they relate to sensitivity at varying timescales.
Regards,
w.
DCA says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:23 am
Gavin Schmidt has been saying lately that the paleo data are more important than the recent observations. Now we know why.
How would one respond to his assertion?
—–
CRS reply Well, let’s see…..repeatability would be the first way to go after paleo techniques, as well as sampling error, complications in interpretation (is tree growth reduced due to temperature or moisture, lack of nutrients, solar inputs etc.?).
I consider paleo the weakest of the climate methodologies, so if that is what Gavin is trying to hang his hat on, good luck with that. Steve MacIntyre has written very elegant articles about this:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/
In reply to John B:
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
Ursus Augustus says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.
—————
So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?
You appear to be ignore of the current planetary temperature data. The lack of warming finding is consistent with Lindzen and Choi’s paper: On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications.
Observations do not support the IPCC alarmist hypothesis that includes massive positive feedback to amplify the CO2 warming to produce a predicted 3.3C warming for a doubling of CO2. The implication of Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of satellite data is a doubling of CO2 will result in roughly 1C warming with most of the warming at higher latitudes where it will be beneficial to the biosphere. Lindzen and Choi do not need to hide their data or destroy their emails. They are braving practicing science. Analysis the data and present the results.
Public policy must be factual based.
Trillions of dollars are being advocated to be spent on bureaucracies to monitor CO2, for CO2 trading systems, on CO2 sequestration, on biofuel subsidies, on wind farm subsidies, on new power lines to pass power (with roughly 30% losses, long power lines do not make engineering or commercial sense), and so.
The engineering solutions proposed to arrest extreme AWG are boondoggles not solutions. A consequence of the AWG alarmist paradigm is people are not questioning the boondoggles. To ask critical questions is to risk being called a “denier”.
The western governments do not have trillions of dollars of surplus tax revenue. This is a fixed limit to deficit spending.
Willis:
You provide a good citation in your post at August 17, 2011 at 11:35 am but it is the same citation that I linked to above at August 17, 2011 at 7:56 am.
I may be wrong, but I think Matt was asking for additional references.
Richard
@richard 111
Our instrument was made by Eppley Labs. Don’t have the model number but it was their standard NIP. Evacuated barrel mounted on a small clocked equatorial tracker. Align it to the sun in the morning and it tracked the sun all day. They are rugged but still a laboratory instrument so I don’t recall that they were inexpensive (several thousands of $?).
Clouds took the readings to very close to zero. Jet contrails put a sizeable glitch in the reading. We used it to verify that we were getting full power into our solar furnace beam during a test run. But if you paid attention, a number of interesting things happen to the incoming solar levels that made us all look into what was actually going on. Neat!
Bernie
E. Swanson:
At August 17, 2011 at 10:50 am you say;
“Here we see more confusion from Dr. Lindzen.”
No, if there is any “confusion” it is yours. Lindzen & Choi measured climate sensitivity. They said nothing about how or why the Earth came out of the last ice age. But the value they obtained indicates your stated understanding of how or why the Earth came out of the last ice age is wrong.
Your understanding cannot disprove the result obtained by Lindzen & Choi.
The result obtained by Lindzen & Choi disproves your understanding.
So, you need to adjust your understanding unless and until the finding of Lindzen & Choi is shown to be wrong.
This is called science.
Richard
If the deep oceans and the land/ice is only absorbing about 0.35W/m2, we can easily say whether temperatures are increasing the way the theory predicts – in the short-term and in the long-term.
How much warming are we missing if 0.35W/m2 is being temporarily diverted to warming something else other than the atmosphere and the sea surface – a tiny, tiny amount.
As of today and in the last 7 years, we are within months to a year of the equilibrium response.
Richard S Courtney says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:44 am
Thanks, Richard. My bad, you got there first, no surprise. Me, I’m waiting for his references.
w.
steven mosher: This “transient response” thing is getting pretty annoying. As others have noted, Lindzen has calculated the same numbers for the models with the same method. So then the models are showing a “transient response” if this method is to be believed as successfully teasing that out, that is much higher than the “transient response” calculated the same way from observations. Now something is wrong here, right? Because if we are to believe that this finding is not inconsistent with high sensitivity, then the models should also show low sensitivity by this method…except they don’t. And there is a very simple reason for that: the argument that the fluxes of radiation are giving the transient response is just wrong. It is easy to see where you are becoming confused. If one takes a comparison between a forcing and temperature change, instantaneously, you have calculated the transient response. Why? Because the full temperature response to the forcing is not instantaneous, but rather takes time. But you are totally wrong if you think this same situation applies to assessing feedback. Feedback is the response of various radiative components to a temperature change that has occurred, not that “will”. If more temperature change would occur at equilibrium, the feedback responses would scale with that. In other words, it is meaningless to bring up the idea of “transient response” when talking about feedback. It is a problem that applies to the effect of a forcing on temperature. Let’s see if we can’t describe this in detail…
Imagine for the sake of argument a system with known sensitivity of say .3 K /W/m^2. Impose a forcing of 1 W/m^2 on the system, and suppose then it instantaneously warms by .15 K. Your transient response calculated from delta T divided by delta F is .15 K/W/m^2, or half the known equilibrium response. Okay, that’s comparing the forcing with the feedback. However, what about the feedback? Well, for our known sensitivity, we know that this system emits an extra 3.33 Watts per meter squared when it is one degree warmer. So the extra watts that the system feedbacks out when it is .15 degrees warmer is about .5 Watts per meter squared. Funnily enough if you divide .15 by .5 you get .3 K/W/m^2, in other words, you extract the correct sensitivity from the transient temperature change when assessing from feedback.
So the “transient response” comment is totally irrelevant to the way Lindzen is actually calculating sensitivity. You can see this is clearly true because otherwise the climate models would have uniformly had underestimated sensitivity. Lindzen’s method didn’t do that with the models.
“We estimate climate sensitivity from observations …”
Say WHAT?!? You can’t base science on what you SEE, you MORON!!! It has to be strictly THEORETICAL!!!!!! How do you expect to get funding if you let FACTS get in the way???
/sarc
steven mosher says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
The work of myself and others (here and here) have shown that the models are functionally equivalent to a linear response to the forcing with a short (a few years) time constant. So contrary to your claim, the models can tell us nothing about a hundred year response. They are fully equivalent to and give identical results to those calculated by a linear forcing response plus a short time lag.
w.
BTW, Mosher, paleo will only give correct sensitivity if one knows the correct forcing that caused a temperature change. If you don’t know the forcing, the sensitivity you get is wrong. This is part of what is wrong with Hansen and other’s such attempts. The other problem is assessing changes associated with larger changes in the equator to pole temperature difference as being due to a globally averaged top of the atmosphere radiative forcing, despite the fact that the mechanism for the glaciations was changes in the latitudinal distribution of insolation. Hansen’s LGM estimate includes no Milankovitch forcing (because globally it averages out) so he complete ignores the known factor for initiating the the glaciations/interglacials in favor of attributing them to global forcings that at best amount to feedbacks. It speaks to a failed paradigm. The actually sensitivity implied by his data, if one takes ice sheets/vegetation and greenhouse gases as changes that occurred in response to the glaciation (feedback), then only “Dust” is left to cause the glaciation, and the implied sensitivity is 30 C for a doubling of CO2. Clearly wrong: the first reason, because there are important forcings that Hansen’s estimate excludes (some of which are probably not even known) and secondly because the actual mechanism does not fit into the paradigm that he is trying to explain the glaciations with.
didn’t Matt have a simple equation ( fits on the back of an envelope ) he was going to show us ?
Matt says: August 17, 2011 at 7:33 am
Please actually read the IPCC report. Their formula for the change in forcing from additional CO2 absolutely accounts for the logarithmic impact of increasing concentrations :
(http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm).
I don’t even think that Lindzen disputes this formula (5.35 log C/C0). His argument is with the climatic response to the forcing from doubled CO2, not with the magnitude of that forcing. If you are going to spout rumors that you don’t even fact check, you may want to reconsider who you are calling the idiots.
The “IPCC formula” delta T = 5.35*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [based on flawed calculations by Arrhenius] predicts climate sensitivity of 3.7C per doubling of CO2. Lindzen is in effect saying, if the climate sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling, the “IPCC formula” should instead be delta T = ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [since ln(2) ~ 0.7]. The 5.35 is the IPCC fudge factor for climate alarm.
Since the observations Lindzen relies on don’t cover the polar regions, where diminished ice-cover can play an out of proportion positive feedback role, as albedo swings from the high value of white snow and ice, to the low values of open water, his results may be biased to the low end as much as he suggests the GCM models are biased too high.
A few centuries are a blink of time.
If the confidence interval for mean sensitivity is 0.5ºC to 1.3ºC, rather than 1.5ºC to 5.0ºC increase in average global surface temperature for doubling of CO2, AT BEST, we only have ‘a little more time’ to try to avoid serious consequences of AGW, for the sake of our descendents!
We’ve been dumping excess CO2 into the ‘atmospheric commons’ for free, by burning fossil fuels to increase OUR standard of living. Equity demands that we, NOT OUR DESCENDANTS, pay for most of the resulting costs, more or less in proportion to OUR individual gains. That isn’t changed by Lindzen’s small – even if valid – ‘correction’ to the analysis.
Willis, I’m sorry but maybe I wasnt clear. when you say ‘tell us nothing” you need to be more specific. I dont think we disagree and I think you may have missed my point and held’s point.
here try this its much more comprehensive and rigorous than your approach, and of course paul gives you the appropriate hat tip
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-and-mathturbation-part-1/
you’ll note that in part two paul confirms what I’ve said about trying to deduce ECR from 100 years of data. TCR– ok, ECR? no cookie.
Also, check out the TCRs for climate models ( when they actually show them) I think you will find that the TCRs are rather close to what Lindzen finds observationally. in short, whether you are looking at models or data inside the 100 year period you are diagnosing the TCR. the transient part of the response. you slam the gas pedal and you look at the first few seconds of data. Inertia is not your friend, but you will see a transient response. When you reach terminal velocity , then you have a data point for the ECR. With the earth, 100 years aint enough. not with a model not with an observational dataset. Do the models give you an answer? sure. Is it worth much? na, read what paulK wrote.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:35 am
Matt says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:33 am
… Also, it should be pointed out that (so far) the bulk of observation-based climate sensitivity measurements have yielded higher sensitivities.
Thanks, Matt, for some good points. For this one, however … citation? Here’s one for a start … obviously they relate to sensitivity at varying timescales.
Regards,
w.
——————-
The paper you linked to is entitled “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change”. Doesn’t bode well for its objectivity, does it? Imagine I linked to a paper entitled “… an alarmist’s view of potential climate change”. I can almost hear the outrage from here: begging the question, what happened to the scientific method, aren’t you supposed to get the results first and then reach your conclusions, etc., etc.
Which brings me back to criticisms of my remarks about skepticism and consensus. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. You can’t go deriding the mainstream consensus along the lines of “science doesn’t work by consensus” and then praising the allegedly emerging alternative consensus. I say “allegedly” because if you look at these papers, the only thing they all agree on is that they disagree with the mainstream view. And you really should be skeptical of “skeptical” papers, too. AGW may be a flawed hypothesis, but that doesn’t mean every word that contradicts it can be taken as gospel.
@Gary Young Swift
“But we don’t know the equilibrium time. In the car analogy, this would be like not knowing the horsepower and slope of the road. What if your snapshot was taken before the crest of a hill? How good would your physics 101 calculation be if you didn’t know that?”
My calculation would be perfect. Why? Because the calculation uses all known variables. If we -know- there will be a hill, and we know -when- it’ll be, then that’s included and there’s no issue. A snapshot does not, in any way, shape, nor form, preclude calculating an end state. This is common in all kinetic theory.
The problem is when you don’t know all the variables. When you can’t know if there is a hill, or even what a hill is, or what a hill will do to the force vectors. Then you have a problem and while you can calculate all day long on what you do know, you won’t know if you match reality until the actual observations come to pass. And that’s how science advances.
But from pure math, there’s no problem at all. You and Mosher are using a logical fallacy: that we can’t do the calculation at all because we might have unknowns. But we can do the calculation at any time based on what variables we do know, and if we’re off (if the calculation does not match the observed reality), that tells us something important–again, that’s how science advances.
Do you feel we know enough about the climate system to calculate the ECR from the TCR? If you think we don’t know enough about climate to do such a straight forward calculation, how can you begin to believe we can ever calculate the ECR?
well since nobody answered my question here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#comment-721752
I must reject the paper
The paper effectively says: the effect of the CO2 is much smaller than what we thought it would be.
That just provides an easy way out for all those scientists with eggs on their face who promoted the idea that an increase of 0.01% of a natural gas could make any difference to the climate. And it still does not say that more of it is better.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
timetochoose.
I’m not in a position to criticize or endorse hansens particular work.
‘BTW, Mosher, paleo will only give correct sensitivity if one knows the correct forcing that caused a temperature change. If you don’t know the forcing, the sensitivity you get is wrong.”
elementary. yes. of course.
The point is this. If ( see that word) you have a system that has both fast feedbacks and slow feedbacks, then you cannot estimate the total system response to a forcing unless you have an observational time window that is long enough to capture the full effect. It goes without saying that you have to be able to estimate the following
1. the forcing
2. the response.
It also goes without saying that IF you want to measure the response, the total system response. the response when temperature ‘stabilizes’ that you have to pick a long enough period. With the earth system, thats a big uncertainty. How long is long enough. well, how long would it take for the arctic to melt out and change albedo? pretty darn long.
You slam the pedal to the floor. your wheels spin. I measure your distance traveled in that time and concluding that slamming the pedal to the floor has no response. Well, thats both right and terribly wrong.
Immunity and blindness to irony is not an intellectually or socially attractive trait.
David A says:
August 17, 2011 at 3:42 am
what are ” all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity’ Which observations are you thinking of?
————
There are primarily two sets of such observations: paleo records showing the correlation of CO2 and temperature (yes, we know all about the lag) from whih a sensitivity can be deduced, and present day observed temperatures vs. projections based on a sensitivity. e.g. the much derided (around here) Hansen prediction of 1988:
Scenario B is the one to look at. Hansen used a sensitivity of around 4C. It would have performed even better had he used the now widely accepted 3C per doubling sensitivity.
Please, no graphs of only the last 5 or 10 years, that just ain’t scientific.
slight correction:
The “IPCC formula” delta Forcing = 5.35*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [based on flawed calculations by Arrhenius] predicts climate sensitivity of 3.1C per doubling of CO2. Forcing of 1 W/m2 supposedly causes 0.85C increase in temperature [TSI of 1367/4=342 W/m2, average Earth temp = 290K, 290/342 = 0.85K]. Lindzen is in effect saying, if the climate sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling, the “IPCC formula” should instead be delta F = 0.82*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [since ln(2) ~ 0.7]. The 5.35 is the IPCC fudge factor for climate alarm.
John B,
Lucia posted what is, I think, a much more accurate graph:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansencomparedrecent.jpg
Hansen is a failed alarmist. He tried three different predictions and got every one of them wrong. That takes a certain amount of negative talent.
Smokey says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm
He tried three different predictions and got every one of them wrong. That takes a certain amount of negative talent.
—————
No he didn’t, and you know it. He used three different scenarios for CO2 emissions and volcanic activity. B was the closest to what actually happened, so A and C are irrelevant.
Or were you trying to be funny?
observa says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:30 am
============
Brilliant. I liked, in particular:
“A stunning example of Blairs Law perhaps, whereby ‘the world’s multiple idiocies will come together in one giant useless force’. Well if that’s a bit harsh, then certainly the sublime irony of a bunch of professional Maoists telling a gaggle of amateur Westen leftists- ‘In your dreams monitoring us and telling us what to do’. “
Hansen got all his predictions wrong. John B is using the discredited surface station chart, which is another subject that’s been covered here in several articles. They can be found in an archive search. Short version: satellite measurements are much more accurate, and that’s what Lucia’s chart used. Here’s another chart I ran across comparing Hansen’s alarmism with reality:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/hansen_forecast_1988-2.jpg
If the ECR is over hundreds of years or even several decades, it’s as policy-irrelevant as it gets.
That which is correct and that which is incorrect is not decided by a vote.
The word “consensus” in the context of scientific endeavour should be banned.
An Einstein quote:- “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Lindzen and Choi are to be warmly congratulated for their continued application of the scientific methodology in the presentation and correction of their findings. Their paper is now in the public domain and it will stand or fall only on its scientific merits.
And this is how science should be.
John B says:
“B was the closest to what actually happened, so A and C are irrelevant.”
That is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: shoot holes in a barn door, then draw a bullseye around one and declare yourself an expert marksman. The holes outside the bullseye are irrelevant.☺
Since Hansen got all three predictions wrong, his opinion isn’t worth much, if anything.
Here’s an interesting view on climate sensitivity:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/sensitive-kind
Len Ornstein says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:34 pm
AT BEST, we only have ‘a little more time’ to try to avoid serious consequences of AGW, for the sake of our descendents!
Go add up all the ‘economically extractable’ coal,oil and natural gas on the planet. Then try to figure out how you could drive CO2 concentrations to 1,000 ppm even if you wanted to using only economically extractable coal, oil and natural gas.
At some point putting a solar panel on my roof won’t be anymore expensive then putting shingles on my roof and burning coal will cost $$$$ money.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Which brings me back to criticisms of my remarks about skepticism and consensus. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. You can’t go deriding the mainstream consensus along the lines of “science doesn’t work by consensus” and then praising the allegedly emerging alternative consensus
Yes you can, since it is Climate Science itself that has set some of the rules for its own Unscientific Game involving “consensus”, as I explained above – and it has lost so far, about 10,000 to 75.
You also demonstrate the same problem with your thinking to the effect that, within the practice of real science, “skepticism” is a bad word. Another “loss”!
George E. Smith says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:55 am
Responses are in line:
“Well Theo, I don’t know how YOU rationalize ANY difference between a THEORY, and a MODEL.”
The differences are very well articulated. You can buy some rather challenging books on the difference.
“To me, a THEORY is simply a description of the properties that the MODEL is endowed with; by those who created the model in the first place.”
One definition of a model is that it is an interpretation of a formalism that makes all the sentences in the formalism true. So, for example, you can have a formalism in mathematics and independently of that formalism you can specify a set of objects, maybe in set theory or the real numbers, which makes all the sentences of the formalism true. You can formalize a scientific theory and do the same thing for it. If you are talking about this concept of model then I can pretty much agree with your remarks that I quoted immediately above.
“Both are equally fictitious; as are all the mathematical tools that have been created to manipulate the model, in that nothing in any of that actually exists in the real universe.”
They are not entirely fictitious. Searching for an interpretation that makes a formalism true can lead you to discover that the formalism contains inconsistencies. A formalism that contains inconsistencies is not fictitious but radically false; that is, it contains an inconsistency and has no model that will render it true.
When you are working with the fictitious, there is no falsehood. Run into inconsistencies? Just change the story. You are making it up after all. Remind you of anyone we know?
But physical theories that have been used and are used are not merely formalims; rather, they are interpreted; that is, they are about the world. No sentence of a formalism or a fiction is about the world.
For example, the scientists at CERN who are searching for the Higgs Boson hold theoretical statements that they understand as being about the world and the scientists believe that they know some observable consequences of the statements that they believe. They might discover that their predictions are true. In that case, they will discover much more, flesh out their ideas about the Higgs Boson, and learn that their theory predicts things they had not imagined. See how important the real world focus is.
By contrast, ask yourself what it would be like for the scientists to specify a model that makes their theory true. Does the fact that they can specify such a model mean that they have discovered the Higgs Boson? No.
“We can “observe” by any of a whole array of means, what we believe the real universe is doing; and has done in the past; and we can artificially create our models and their descriptive theories, so that they can be shown to behave in some way as close to what we perceive the real universe behaves; but those theories and models are not substitutes for the observations of the real universe.”
There is a strain in Pragmatism, most prominently William James and John Dewey, that held this view of scientific theory. However, the first casualty is truth. If the only purpose of my theory is to facilitate my observations, then it is neither true nor false but a mere formalism that is convenient for…how long? Well, nobody can know. Until the observations get difficult again. On this account of theory, Ptolemy’s system of epicycles is no less valuable than Kepler’s conceptually accurate description of the solar system or Newton’s mathematization of it. And you cannot compare Ptolemy and Kepler on the matter of truth because the Pragmatists ruled out truth. (By the way, James’s teacher, Charles Sanders Peirce, disowned him and renamed his philosophy Pragmaticism.”) We do agree that planetary orbits are ellipses (Kepler) and not perfect circles sitting on perfect circles (Ptolemy), right George?
“Of course, we can use our theories to predict (sometimes quite precisely) how the model will behave in the future; or what the outcome would be, if we performed an experiment with our model, that has never been performed. We like it when some analagous experiment that we perform in the real world, results in observations of an apparent behavior of the real universe, that appears to us to be similar to that predicted of the model.”
We cannot predict how the model will behave in the future or experiment with the model because the model has been fully specified. It is set in stone. For example, the fact that our formalism turns out to be true in the real numbers means nothing to the real numbers. They were fully specified many decades ago. The model serves purely as an analytic tool.
“The real world itself is far too complex for us to predict the future behavior; or result of some as yet never performed experiment.”
Have the faith of a mustard seed. The scientists at CERN will figure out all this Higgs Boson stuff, though it might turn out to be the Higgs Boson***. Read about their work if you think the real world is too complex for accurate prediction.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 10:23 am
“To such people, any criticism of the paper will be seen as merely proof that “The Team” are up to no good. I trust you are not one of those people, but you cannot deny they exist.”
Fine. In the future when you make such claims, you will explicitly exclude me and and my friends, right?
“…any criticism of the paper will be seen as merely proof that “The Team” are up to no good.”
The Team will always be up to no good until they embrace transparency and the scientific method, both of which they purposely ignore.
steven mosher-The main reason for a different “Transient Response” versus equilibrium sensitivity is not slow feedbacks, the main problem is the thermal inertia of the ocean. If one wants to get into slow feedbacks, that’s another difficulty. However the main feedback processes are clouds and water vapor, and these tend to have very short time scales. A carbon cycle feedback is probably mostly slow, and I would argue pretty weak. The Ice Albedo feedback may be slow in it’s greatest magnitude (ie large ice sheets) but also highly non linear (the feedback is much stronger when there are large ice sheets in the midlatitudes, as during the ice ages, as that combines high reflectance with high insolation compared to the high latitudes.) Going forward in the warm direction I don’t think you’ll find a strong positive feedback globally from ice.
On many levels though, the true equilibrium response is kind of an academic issue, of little interest to what actually matters. If it’s one degree a thousand years but five in a million, just say, well who cares about the million year response? Nobody in the real world, surely. Well, okay, so the “equilibrium response” will be larger than the transient response. But the degree to which the response is caused by fast feedbacks (which at least in models it generally is) one can assess the feedback that gives the equilibrium response. If you still think Lindzen is measuring a transient response, it must be that you think slow feedbacks are really important. At least in current models, however, the main factor which causes the difference between TCR and ECS is the thermal inertia of the ocean. As long as feedbacks scale near instantaneously with temperature, which mostly they do, then there is no infection of “transient response” in Lindzen’s estimate. A forcing-change comparison over a short time would be infected by “transient response” an assessment of feedbacks mostly isn’t which can be seen from the fact that Lindzen’s estimates of the senstivity of the various models, using the same method, are not systematically lower than the sensitivities of the models in question.
RE: John B
“B was the closest to what actually happened, so A and C are irrelevant. ”
No, “A” was the closest to what happened by scenario definitions and “C” was closest to actual temperature observations. Being the definitions were A=business as usual, B = NO CO2 emission growth from 1988 levels, and C = dramatic CO2 reductions; making this the most hideous kind of prediction. If we had actually followed his recommendations and the temperature had done exactly what it did without following those recommendations, he and his ilk could be right now saying the reason for the temperature tracking the way it did was because of those dramatic CO2 emission reductions without much of any way of being proven wrong; they would be heroes like none before them. Scary.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
@Len Ornstein: a little more time, like what a couple of 100 years. Remember there was no cars no computers no trips to the moon no nuclear power and the list goes on a couple of 100 years back. Trying to do something about a possible problem a couple of 100 years in the future has extreamly low expected value. Also if the sensitivity is much lower the IPCC suggest then there might never even be a problem.
Dave Springer says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:22 am
////////////////////////////////////
Good to see some sound commonsense.
Personally I think we ought to agree to change both phrases “the alarmists” and “the deniers”, to “the pious” and “the heretics”. Time to stop the ugly name calling I say.
I’ve just searched Realclimate and can find no reference to this paper. Clearly it lacks any relevance to modern Climate science;>). Reading the comments on this thread, they seem to be shifting discussion away from the science behind the paper towards some form of metadiscussion. Empirically it looks to me that Lindzen and Choi have delivered a major pillar in the temple of climate science and it leaves the critics speechless.
@Hockey Schtick:
You are confusing forcing with sensitivity.
“The IPCC formula’ delta Forcing = 5.35*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [based on flawed calculations by Arrhenius] predicts climate sensitivity of 3.1C per doubling of CO2.”
This formula is not based on calculations (flawed or otherwise). It is based on direct measurement. Also, this formula merely calculates the change in forcing (which for a doubling of CO2 is about 3.7 W/m^2). It does *not* predict sensitivity. You need a model or further assumptions to predict sensitivity.
“The 5.35 is the IPCC fudge factor for climate alarm.”
No, it is a measured value.
” the ‘IPCC formula’ should instead be delta F = 0.82*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) ”
No. You have it backwards.
deltaTemp = climatesensitivity * deltaForcing
This change in forcing (deltaForcing) is a given that everyone including Prof Lindzen (to my knowledge) agree on. Where they disagree is in the temperature response (sensitivity) to that change in forcing. You shouldn’t change the forcing to make it agree with Lindzen’s deltaT=0.7. You should change the climate sensitivity.
John W says:
August 17, 2011 at 2:30 pm
RE: John B
“B was the closest to what actually happened, so A and C are irrelevant. ”
No, “A” was the closest to what happened by scenario definitions and “C” was closest to actual temperature observations. Being the definitions were A=business as usual, B = NO CO2 emission growth from 1988 levels, and C = dramatic CO2 reductions;
——————–
You are wrong about A and B. You are right about C. This is from the abstract of the actual 1988 paper:
“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”
A was for exponential growth, B was for linear growth (not no growth), C was (as you said) for dramatic reductions. B and C also included a major volcanic event, and we got Pinatubo in 1992. B was the closest to what actually happened. And it is irrelevant how close C was, since C didn’t happen.
And this is NOT the sharpshooter fallacy, Smokey. Yes, there were three projections, but each one was against a different potential future scenario. Had a different scenario played out, we would be judging the projection against that scenario. I know you understand this, so stop playing games.
son of mulder
They’re starting off with an “attack” on the Journal; although I’m not sure of the implied relevance.
“Unforced Variations”
Steven Mosher says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Thanks, mosh. Sorry for my lack of clarity. I said that the models can tell us nothing about ECS, the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Your citation says :
In other words, the models are not calculating the ECS from the data. Instead, they are simply physical embodiments of the beliefs, claims, and prejudices of the model builders regarding the ECS.
Or to restate what I said … they can tell us nothing about the ECS, they only can tell us about the modelers.
w.
For Smokey and John B:
GISS July : Right At Scenario C
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/giss-july-right-a7-scenario-c/
Hansen is obviously wrong.
John B
“And it is irrelevant how close C was, since C didn’t happen.”
Here we go again. Hansen was so brilliant that he came up with temperature Scenarios that agree both with GHG scenarios that did happen and those that didn’t
Given that this year’s data will put us much closer to C than to B, I can see why you guys desperately want to “disappear” C.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I am completely uninterested in what the title of the paper is. I care even less what it bodes. That’s so foolish we have a saying about it, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”
I am concerned with its scientific arguments. I note you have ignored the science completely, in favor of reciting your fantasy of what you think would happen if you cited a paper titled blah blah blah …
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Quote what you object to.
“These” papers? What papers are “these” papers? You have lapsed into an incomprehensible and aggro attack on something, but I haven’t a clue what it is. Certainly, it’s nothing I said or did, and I’m known for being skeptical of skeptical papers, so it’s not that. Quote what you are objecting to, so we can interpret your otherwise totally mysterious statements.
In mystery,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:24 pm
“In other words, the models are not calculating the ECS from the data. Instead, they are simply physical embodiments of the beliefs, claims, and prejudices of the model builders regarding the ECS.
Or to restate what I said … they can tell us nothing about the ECS, they only can tell us about the modelers.”
Yes, you nailed it, Willis. Once again, we see that Gaia Models contain huge assumptions by modelers and that these assumptions are incapable of being brought under the discipline imposed in science by reality and scientific method. Much of the reasoning about climate that is based on Gaia Models is “a priori” reasoning, more similar to Spinoza’s reasonings on God than Galileo’s reasoning about projectile motion.
“Hockey Schtick says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm
slight correction:
The “IPCC formula” delta Forcing = 5.35*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [based on flawed calculations by Arrhenius] predicts climate sensitivity of 3.1C per doubling of CO2. Forcing of 1 W/m2 supposedly causes 0.85C increase in temperature [TSI of 1367/4=342 W/m2, average Earth temp = 290K, 290/342 = 0.85K]. Lindzen is in effect saying, if the climate sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling, the “IPCC formula” should instead be delta F = 0.82*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) [since ln(2) ~ 0.7]. The 5.35 is the IPCC fudge factor for climate alarm.”
You”re confusing forcing in watts with degrees C. A doubling of CO2 would give
ln(2/1) =0.693. Multiply that by 5.35 and you get an additional 3.7 watts.
If the current avg temp is 288 K,, we have a flux of 390.7 watts. An additional 3.7 watts
would increase that to (394.4/390.7)^0.25 tikes 288 K = 288.7 K.
Of course the earth does not radiate as efficiently as a black body so the actual wattage flux would be somewhat less than 390.7 watts,, there’s an additional 100 watts in the latent heat of evaporation and conduction, and that’s where you get the qualifiers of somewhere between 0.5K and 1K with no feedbacks.
John W says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm
“They’re starting off with an “attack” on the Journal; although I’m not sure of the implied relevance.”
They will get to character assassination of Lindzen shortly. They love it. Alinskyites are so predictable.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:15 pm
A was for exponential growth, B was for linear growth (not no growth), C was (as you said) for dramatic reductions. B and C also included a major volcanic event, and we got Pinatubo in 1992. B was the closest to what actually happened. And it is irrelevant how close C was, since C didn’t happen.
====================================================================
John, you lost me…..
…are you saying that volcanoes, air pollution from China, etc stops global warming….
….and when it starts back up, it just continues the previous trend line?
Great Top 10 John W. 🙂
Also from the report on page 48 figure 3: ” Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the last 20 years”; what I termed buisiness as usual. Seems reasonable to me that what is typical for 20 years is business as usual. Then the report states “scenario B has emission rates fixed at approximately current rates”; not emission growth rates fixed, if the paper isn’t consistent, well I can’t help that.
Either way, we didn’t do what he said had to be done and the result was still what he claimed couldn’t happen without massive intervention.
John W says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm
son of mulder
They’re starting off with an “attack” on the Journal; although I’m not sure of the implied relevance.
=====================================================================
John, they are warping the science process….
It does not matter where something was published, or even if it was published.
Peer review, is not supposed to be a confirmation of whether something is right or not.
If it was supposed to confirm that something is 100% right, then the very process of peer review would mean that one of the”peers” had already thought of it first……
it’s a known known…………….
Peer review is not much more than a glorified spell check.
It all happens after it’s out there, that’s where it’s proven or trashed….
Throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks……………
@Willis
By “These papers” I mean pretty much any set of papers that make up the supposedly emerging anti-AGW “consensus”. They don’t form a consistent picture, but many “skeptics” (maybe not you) seem to think that is not their job. So, you get papers saying “it’s the sun”, “it’s natural variation”, “it’s cosmic rays”, “it’s the jet stream”, “it’s volcanoes”, “it’s the clouds”, “feedback are negative”, “we simply don’t know”, and so on. Many of them get trumpeted (by some, not all) here as ” the final nail in the coffin of AGW”, but it is if the trumpeters don’t realise that if one of these papers were right, a good number of others must be wrong. As a scientist, I would be much more comfortable with the skeptical position if it presented a consistent alternative to AGW. how about you?
And my other rambling about consensus was in reply to another poster, not yourself. My apologies for the confusion.
I can see it now. Dr. AGW-Professor calls in his most trusted grad student and tells him, “Go adjust our model to use these forcing sensitivity numbers and bring me the results. And if you tell anyone but me your results the only climate research you will be doing for the rest of your Ph D work will be in the Sahara Desert and Antarctica.”
Latitude says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:15 pm
A was for exponential growth, B was for linear growth (not no growth), C was (as you said) for dramatic reductions. B and C also included a major volcanic event, and we got Pinatubo in 1992. B was the closest to what actually happened. And it is irrelevant how close C was, since C didn’t happen.
====================================================================
John, you lost me…..
…are you saying that volcanoes, air pollution from China, etc stops global warming….
….and when it starts back up, it just continues the previous trend line?
—————————-
Is that a trick question?
Large volcanoes like Pinatubo cause cooling due to aerosols for a number of years, but then the effect dies away as the aerosols precipitate out. This is overlaid on the effects of other forcings. Hansen’s scenarios B and C took into account a hypothetical future large eruption, and we actually got Pinatubo. Scenario A assumed no such eruption, which is one reason it is not the relavant scenario. This is all well documented.
‘the correct forcing’
If only one had some sort of scientific notation to explain how heat, in its various forms, becomes temperature.
I can place heat into a air mass/ground interface and get a mixture of temperature change, humidity change and pressure change. Instead of all the bother of actually measuring the changes that occur during a daily cycle? You know, have a spectrophotometer light pipe buried in a field in Kansas, have a tethered balloon with a spectrophotometer light pipe and light pipes pointing up and down, a tuned diode infrared laser tuned to 1400 nm to measure water content of the air, and, for good measure, a couple of thermometers and manometers.
Just get the damned data, measure the area under the curve of incoming and then find out if cloudy days are hotter or colder than clear ones.
I suppose it is easier to ‘calculate’ forcing of 10+ trace gasses.
John B says:
John, would you agree that the temps are almost equivalent to the C scenario? Most rational people would. As to the trace gas growth……. it is almost linear, but in reality exponential….. so, reasonable people could disagree about an A/B scenario as it relates to trace gases. But the temps are what they are. And Hansen’s projections are what they are. He missed his mark….. He states that himself! He blames it on China’s burning of coal, releasing aerosols which he believes has caused the pause in temp rises. (Which I think is laughable, but is for a different conversation.) So, you can quit defending the indefensible. The creator of the ehem projections……not predictions….(lol) says he missed. What I would do, were I on the alarmist side, would be to go look for a model a wee bit more accurate in its projections…….. oh, wait, there isn’t any. Cli-sci modeling hasn’t progressed any since 1988…….. pitiful. Over 20 years of time, energy, and money invested in another fruitless venture.
Mosher,
I quite like Issac Held’s TCR and ECR post but it should just be noted that the two processes appear as two separate processes only in his model. That doesn’t mean this is how things are in the real world. I remember reading in his post that other climate models give a less distinct separation. I like Held’s post because at no point does he confuse the modeled result with the real world.
I JUST talked about this today, in my discussion about the scientific method and how scientific illiteracy and bad science can lead to extremely damaging (not to mention expensive) social policy. I even recommended WUWT, putting the URL on the board for students who care to go beyond what they hear on CNN. I’m not even diplomatic any more–MY students at least will have heard what is really going on, and hopefully stop bringing me weekly science articles about AGW and how it’s going to ruin the planet.
Takes a lot to ruin a planet, turns out. 🙂
“DCA says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:23 am
Gavin Schmidt has been saying lately that the paleo data are more important than the recent observations. Now we know why.
How would one respond to his assertion?”
With regard to the glacial to interglacial sensitivity, one can’t equate the positive feedback effect of melting ice from that of leaving maximum ice to that of minimum ice where the climate is now. There just isn’t much ice left, and what is left would be very hard to melt, as most of is located at high latitudes around the poles which are mostly dark 6 months out the year with way below yearly average freezing temperatures. A lot of the ice is thousands of feet above sea level too where the air is significantly colder. Unless you wait a few 10s of millions of years for plate tectonics to move Antarctica and Greenland to lower latitudes (if they are even moving in that direction), no significant amount of ice is going to melt from a measly 0.5-1 C rise in temperature. Furthermore, the high sensitivity from glacial to interglacial is largely driven by the change in the orbit relative to the Sun, which changes the distribution of the incoming solar energy in the system dramatically. This combined with positive feedback effect of melting surface ice is enough to overcome the net negative feedback and cause the 5-6 C rise. But we are very nearing the end of this interglacial period, so if anything the orbit has already flipped back in the direction of glaciation and cooling.
In reply to E.Swanson’s comment: E. Swanson says: August 17, 2011 at 10:50 am
Here we see more confusion from Dr. Lindzen. One big question I’ve not seen him address. If the feedback is negative, that feedback would also work to minimize any cooling due to natural causes. So, Dr. Lindzen, tell us how it was possible for the Ice Ages to begin after the last Interglacial and how was it possible that all those glaciers which buried Eastern Canada and parts of the US as far south as NYC and Boston melted later? Inquiring minds want to know.
A couple of separate threads would be required to discuss the paleoclimatic record. If the planet’s feedback is negative there is a cyclic powerful climate change mechanism that causes the glacial/interglacial cycle and abrupt climate change events that occur throughout the glacial period. Paleoclimatic research has been proceeding in the background separate from AGW controversy.
The paleoclimatic record does not support positive feedback. The interglacial periods end abruptly not gradually or oscillatory. What is required to explain the paleoclimatic record is a massive abrupt climate change mechanism. The appeal to positive feedback does not explain the observations. The climate does not strongly oscillate following a large volcanic eruption which is the response of a system with positive feedback. The planet rapidly recovers to a stable climate after a large volcanic eruption.
The paleoclimatic record has a repeating long term saw tooth change to the planetary climate. The Younger Dryas cooling period for example was a 4C cooling 80% of which occurred in a decade. The Younger Dryas cooling period lasted for a 1000 years. There are small, medium, and very large abrupt climate events in the paleoclimatic record. Cosmogenic isotope changes correlate with the small, medium, and very large abrupt climate changes events. The sun is somehow involved with the serial climate event however the solar event causes the planetary cooling indirectly by changing the geomagnetic field which takes hundreds or thousands of years to recover. (The effect is dependent on the tilt of earth at the time of the solar event, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, and the timing of perihelion at the time of the solar event which determines whether the restrike occurs in the northern or southern hemisphere.)
It appears the cyclic long term changes to the climate and the abrupt climate change events such as the Younger Dryas (there is a geomagnetic excursion that correlates with the Younger Dryas event) are caused by abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field specialists have examined clay tiles that were fired over the last 1500 years to find curious abrupt changes of the geomagnetic field that are occurring with a periodicity of roughly 400 years. (Geomagnetic field axis abrupt changes 10 to 15 degrees) Other geomagnetic specialists have found geomagnetic excursions (field strength drops by a factor of 5 to 10 during the excursion) at the termination of each of the last glacial periods by study ocean floor sediments. The very large abrupt geomagnetic field changes are occurring with a period of roughly 12,000 years.
The geomagnetic strength field is reduced by a factor of 5 to 8 during the glacial periods. A reduction in the geomagnetic field causes an increase in planetary clouds which causes the planet to cool. There are cycles of abrupt geomagnetic field changes that correlate with cyclic changes to the planetary climate during the glacial phase.
(See these papers for additional observation evidence to support the hypothesis.)
Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic and Climate?
We review evidence for correlations which could suggest such (causal or non-causal) connections at various time scales (recent secular variation approx 10–100 yr, historical and archeomagnetic change appox. 100–5000 yr, and excursions and reversals approx. 10^3–10^6 yr), and attempt to suggest mechanisms. Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous. Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent. The most intriguing feature may be the recently proposed archeomagnetic jerks, i.e. fairly abrupt (approx. 100 yr long) geomagnetic field variations found at irregular intervals over the past few millennia, using the archeological record from Europe to the Middle East. These seem to correlate with significant climatic events in the eastern North Atlantic region. A proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007
Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined.
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).
DocMartyn says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm
‘the correct forcing’
If only one had some sort of scientific notation to explain how heat, in its various forms, becomes temperature. …….
=========================================================
Doc, that’s a great idea……. though I used a thermometer, I did something similar…….I just got through posting this comment at Goddard’s…….. in part……..
“I once had a cloud pass overhead on a warm day and noticed the cooling effect. (Strange I know, but it gets weirder!!) I then had a cloud pass overhead on a cool moonlit night. The radiative energy bouncing back and forth from the ground to cloud and back to the ground several times over literally put me in a microwave!!! The snow on the ground started to melt!…… I noted the temp difference was even more than the temp difference of the summer cloud but in the opposite manner!!!
– 😐 ———————— No, not really…….that reality only exists in the minds of climate crazed alarmists. Some supposedly educated pinheads actually believe there is a net increase in temps because of clouds…….it isn’t even close, clouds cool the earth.”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/summer-is-over-in-the-arctic/#comment-80261
It may be good science, but I bet it doesn’t make us any the less doomed.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:35 pm (Edit)
In that case I’m not interested. If you have specific objections to specific words in specific papers, quote them, identify them, and state your objections. Saying “pretty much any set of papers” is meaningless.
w.
Matt & Alan D McIntire:
The IPCC says 1 W/m2 additional forcing raises the global temperature by 0.75°C +/- 0.25°C.
I have also seen this calculated on this site a number times using:
1367 TSI/4= 342 W/m2 ‘average’ solar insolation
‘Average’ Earth temp = 290 K
290/342= 0.85K temperature change per 1 W/m2 change in forcing
Lets take the average of the two and say .8C delta T results from 1 W/m2 delta F
or delta F = 1.2 delta T
If Lindzen is correct that sensitivity is 0.7C per doubling of CO2, the corresponding change in forcing should be
delta F = (1.2)(delta T) = .84 W/m2 = 1.2*ln(2)
thus the “IPCC formula” “should be” approx.
delta F = 1.2*ln(C/Co)
A far cry from the current “IPCC formula” of delta F = 5.35*ln(C/Co)
And a far cry from “the formula” suggested by measurements of a supposed 0.6C change during a period in which CO2 rose by 100 ppm, which would imply the formula should be
delta F = 1.2*0.6 = .72 = 1.03*ln(C/Co)
if one assumes ALL of the 0.6C change in T is due to CO2 with NOTHING at all due to natural variability. Of course, if any of that change was due to natural variability, the “fudge factor” of 1.03 would be even less.
Matt – when you state the “IPCC formula” is directly based on measurements, what measurements specifically are you referring to? Do you have a reference?
“blockade runner” n. (new slang) scientists who get their heretical articles past the peer review hostiles and into publication.
steven mosher says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
“The ECR or equillibrium climate response is what happens over longer periods of time and includes those processes that take longer to develop, like changes in albedo. The ECR takes hundreds of years. When people talk about sensitivity they are talking about the ECR.
The observation record is too short to a good estimate of the ECR. You get a nice lower bound however.”
If you cannot determine that you have confirmed predictions for a hundred years then you will have no science until a hundred years passes. No confirmed predictions means no science. The people who claim that they have a science of the ECR, whether through empirical observations or models, are deluded. They are doing metaphysics if they are doing anything at all.
JEyon says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
‘“blockade runner” n. (new slang) scientists who get their heretical articles past the peer review hostiles and into publication.’
Good one! My hat is off to you.
DocMartyn says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm
“If only one had some sort of scientific notation to explain how heat, in its various forms, becomes temperature.”
The only way to do it is “in place.” You have to choose something to measure, hopefully a natural process such as La NIna, then you send out researchers to identify the component natural processes that make up La Nina, then you introduce measuring instruments for temperature and the kinds of heat transfer that you think are important. Voila! In a few decades, you will have a scientific understanding of heat transfer in La Nina and temperature measurements as refined as you like for each moment in the history of the relevant natural processes.
What I just described is standard Scientific Method. Junk the supercomputers, unless you need them for data keeping, and get to work in the field.
It’s interesting to note that this paper explicitly states that the impact of global warming appears to be less than previously estimated, yet many are taking this to read that global warming doesn’t exist at all. Scepticism is a healthy pursuit only if those being sceptical can take a position which remains rational.
This paper came up a few months ago when Lindzen complained how he couldn’t get it through even pal review at PNAS. He had chosen some of the reviewers, and still failed there.
The reason it failed was it hadn’t overcome the main objections in the first paper, even though they corrected some data processing quirks and math errors.
They assume that the tropical sensitivity to ocean temperature changes on time scales of months is equal to the global sensitivity to changes in CO2 on the scale of decades. Some believe you can equate these, but most, including his PNAS reviewers, are skeptical that he can extend his results to global climate sensitivity, even if he can say something about tropical oceans and the clouds there associated with El Ninos. I think it would have been publishable if he kept to a more limited scope for his conclusions, but he wanted to go all-out global for some reason. Even Spencer has doubts about whether these approaches can work at all.
Sigh …
In a piece called It’s Not About The Feedback, I have discussed how the current climate paradigm is as mechanistic and predictable as balls on a pool table. Unfortunately, Lindzen and Choi take that mechanistic paradigm as their starting point as well, with their Equation 1:
∆T = sensitivity * ∆Q Equation 1
Same old same old, the very equation I had discussed in my cited post. They go on to equation 2, to discuss the effect of feedback on that equation, but for the reasons in my citation, I’ve already parted company with them at equation 1. The climate is not linear and mechanistically predictable, that doesn’t accord with reality.
I think that equation 1 is the result of highly suspect mathematics, and has no physical meaning.
I think, and have given (what I see as) good reasons for thinking, that sensitivity is a function of temperature, particularly in the tropics. When it is cool, sensitivity is high, and vice versa. This does not progress linearly, but shifts abruptly at the crossings of a series of thresholds.
So I fear that much of Lindzen and Choi’s work, while fascinating, is based on an incorrect assumption. This is the assumption of equation 1 as the basic state. I don’t accept that assumption. I say that the thermal stability of the planet, and particularly the tropics, is the result of the dependence of sensitivity on temperature.
Lindzen and Choi are repeating the same mistake as the AGW folks, only from the other side of the aisle. They’re trying to analyze a system of heat-sensing self-generating surface cooling machines that spring up as needed to put the cool-water fire-hose on the local hot spots, as if it were analyzing a system of forces acting on a lever.
Which is why I’m a heretic. I say the underlying paradigm, the root description, the claimed linearity and the magic formula Temperature Equals Sensitivity Times Forcing are an incorrect description of the reality of the climate system.
The reality is that the climate system has preferred states and preferred temperatures as a result of a host of homeostatic mechanisms. Chief among them are thunderstorms, the active part of the Great Hadley Solar Powered Air Conditioning, Water Cooling, Ice Making, and Global Circulation Machine.
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and see the Hadley wonders in action. You think that heat only flows from hot areas to cold areas? The Great Hadley Ice Making Machines flip that on its head. They make cold flow instead of heat. And to complete the trick, they make the cold flow from cold areas to hot areas. To do it, they take water vapor from the surface. They condense and freeze out the water in the frigid upper atmosphere. Then they deliver the frozen water back from the icy altitudes to the very surface from which it left … how’s that for a neat trick? They make cold flow from cold to hot … including what might be laughingly termed “Latent Cold”, since it will cool the surface even further to have to melt the ice.
As a result of that and a host of tricks involving cloud albedo and local wind generation and the like, thunderstorms are able to regulate the surface temperature, springing up as necessary, in ever increasing numbers, to cool out any local hot spots or areas.
Nor do thunderstorms resemble feedback. They do not just slow down a temperature increase, like a negative feedback.
Instead, their dual-fuel nature allows them to actually cool the surface down to a temperature below that at which they started. When they kick into existence, the surface gets not just a slowed warming, but a good cooling.
Now, this situation can be analyzed and it can be modeled … but only by admitting that it is a self-regulating, self-organized, threshold-based system, which is regulated inter alia by active temperature-generated independent refrigeration cycle units springing up as needed and chilling out surface hot spots with cold water and cold air. It’s not easy to model, but it can be done.
You can’t model it or analyze it, however, by claiming that it’s like balls on a level pool table. Temperature doesn’t equal some magic number times the forcing, maybe you can believe that if it helps you to sleep, but the real climate is infinitely more complex and ingenious.
So no … equation one, that idea that temperature is some unspecified number times the forcing?
Not so much. I’m a heretic.
w.
[snip – banned]
Right on Willis! : )
This one line from this new paper:
“We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics…”
____
Sorry, wrong answer. They can argue all they want, but as every single global climate model shows both the greatest effects and greatest positive feedbacks to global warming are first and foremost concentrated in the polor regions (and specifically more the Arctic early on), this gives me great pause in accepting the validity of only a 1c temperature increase with a doubling of CO2. A minimum of 3C is more reasonable.
you know Matt, you can only ignore the requests for so long.
and I believe your reference to ‘actual measurements’ refers to the constant 5.35, in an equation you seem to accept as gospel.
so, why don’t you explain the complete development of this number 5.35 and how measurements figured into this numbers calculation and by who, these measurements were done and when ! ?
how many times do I/we have to ask ? ?
or, can someone else fill in for him ?
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:52 pm
[snip – banned]
Excellent decision.
REPLY: He’d been banned before, this was the previously known troll “moderate republican” who thinks his opinion to be so important he had to sneak back in under another fake name and fake email address, along with a fake cache server connection. But he slipped up in his zeal, so off he goes again. – Anthony
Yes.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Excellent work, Willis. I look forward to seeing more from you in the reasonably near future.
Ged wrote this: “Do you feel we know enough about the climate system to calculate the ECR from the TCR? If you think we don’t know enough about climate to do such a straight forward calculation, how can you begin to believe we can ever calculate the ECR?”
Well, we have a case that is intermediate between full and accurate knowledge and complete ignorance. We may be able to estimate the ECR from the TCR as we accumulate more evidence over a long enough time (what looks to me now will require decades at least.) Your braking example is a case where the fundamental constants are known with great accuracy, as is the required mathematical model. For ECR and TCR we have partial knowledge of the required mathematical model (c.f. Willis’ comments on the linearities in the GCM model output in his interchange with Steve Mosher), and inaccurate knowledge of the constants (also called parameters in the mathematical context.)
Willis Eschenbach wrote: “The reality is that the climate system has preferred states and preferred temperatures as a result of a host of homeostatic mechanisms. Chief among them are thunderstorms, the active part of the Great Hadley Solar Powered Air Conditioning, Water Cooling, Ice Making, and Global Circulation Machine.”
If you’d write “feedback mechanisms” instead of “homeostatic mechanisms” I’d say you were onto something. “Homeostatic” is more appropriate for biological organisms that have evolved by a process of random variation and natural selection.
With that out critique of the way, I wish that you would submit this to a peer-reviewed journal, and respond to what reviewers have to say. Without quantitation of the processes that you list in that and the subsequent paragraph, it looks to me like your idea is too vague to be testable.
So, are the positive feedbacks showing up?
No, they are not.
Not onlydo we have missing energy of 0.8 Watts/m2 of direct forcing impact, we are also missing 2.1 Watts/m2 of feedbacks that were supposed to be occuring (I think this has been missed in the debate so far).
We have already added enough GHGs and had other impacts that should, by themselves, have already increased temperatures by about 0.8C.
With that, we should have seen feedbacks (water vapour, positive cloud forcing and Albedo impacts) to raise temperatures another 0.8C.
Water vapour – well we can’t really tell what it is doing except that the naturally varying ENSO mostly controls it. Ice Albedo? well there is some melt in the Arctic but this has not changed the global Albedo number 1 iota (the Arctic sea ice is melt would have had only a tiny, tiny impact anyway). Positive cloud forcing? Well clouds are a negative to start with and the ERBE and CERES satellites do not find any real change at all caused by clouds.
So, temperatures are not increasing even as fast as just the direct Anthropogenic component is supposed to cause, let alone the extra bump that feedbacks are supposed to provide.
From Trenberth, “Negative Radiative Feedback -2.8 Watts/m2” – a mysterious term which covers why the temperature response is less than the direct GHG forcing is supposed to provide and how much the non-existent feedbacks were also supposed to provide.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8098/trenberthnetradiation.jpg
R. Gates says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm (Edit)
I argue that the control mechanisms, not feedbacks but homeostatic control mechanisms, are largely concentrated in the tropics. Not only that, but I can tell you why they are there. In any heat engine, the first and main control mechanism is the throttle. It controls the incoming fuel/energy entering the hot end of the heat engine.
For the heat engine we call the earths climate, the hot end of the heat engine is the tropics. Controlling the polar albedo would do little to control the global temperature. Controlling the tropical albedo, on the other hand, is the major throttling mechanism for reducing solar energy entering the system.
The throttle is in the tropics because that’s where the energy enters the system, at the hot end of the heat engine.
w.
Jenn Oates says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#comment-722016
Good for you! I like that.
teach the children well not to make the same mistakes that the climate scientists made:
What the IPCC did, is look at the problem from the wrong end. It is the worst mistake any scientist can make. They assumed that global warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s (even though not everybody agreed with this at the time) and then made allocations (forcings) largely based on the observed global warming since 1750 versus the increase of the gases noted since 1750. This is where the 3.7 W/m2 for CO2 that this paper starts off with comes from.
It is not based on any real physical measurements. There are no real test results. Nobody here can show me how it was measured.
The problem now is that none of the IPCC “profs” ever seem to have realised that in the case of CO2, it also causes cooling, both radiative (by re-radiation in the near IR and IR 0-5 um – where the sun also emits) and biologically. Plants and trees need both warmth and CO2 to grow. This warmth is extracted from the earth and the atmosphere.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Nobody here can tell us exactly what the net effect is of the increase in CO2, warming or cooling because they have not tested it.
Strangely enough, if I look carefully at a number of individual results, and I want to find out why some places are getting cooler and some places are getting warmer,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
it appears that another very strange paradox becomes apparent. This is the latest finding that I have stumbled upon. As forestation and greenery increases it appears that more heat gets trapped. It seems it is the increase in the trees and plants that does it……A recent Helsinki study showed that out of 70 countries checked, 45 reported more greenery.
So in the end, I am saying that man “behaving bad” was probably that we planted too much greenery. We wanted too much crops and heaven around us.
I don’t know yet how are we going to tell the greenies that global warming was their own fault.
@Bernie Anderson McCune at 11:44 am
Thanks Bernie. I found the machine via Bing. It seems to be very finely tuned to report ZERO W/m^2 of incoming SWR. My guess is a NIP is being used comercially on this site:
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/solar.php
Septic Matthew says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:28 pm
But it’s not a “feedback mechanism”, Matthew. It is a control mechanism involving a series of regime shifts. These don’t involve changes in feedback. They involve replacing one circulation system with another system, a new system with different components entirely … that’s not a feedback as I understand feedback.
Whatever you call it, my point is that the climate is not free to take up any value, there are preferred states.
Regarding writing it up, did that already, it was peer-reviewed and published in Energy and Environment a year or so ago.
You ask for “quantitation of the processes.” I’ve described the processes in “It’s Not About Feedback.” I’ve discussed supporting numeric evidence in “The Tao That Can Be Spoken“. I also looked at some quantities regarding albedo changes in “The Thermostat Hypothesis“.
So the process continues. It’s early days, I’ve been a lone voice crying “thermostat” in the wilderness, I don’t have graduate students, and I have a day job. But at least people are starting to discuss the question about the underlying paradigm describing climate. Linear, or thermostatic?
w.
Nick Kellingley says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:14 pm
“It’s interesting to note that this paper explicitly states that the impact of global warming appears to be less than previously estimated, yet many are taking this to read that global warming doesn’t exist at all. Scepticism is a healthy pursuit only if those being sceptical can take a position which remains rational.”
I did not see anyone say this paper means global warming does not exisit at all. However, the iimplication is that the claim of “catostrophic” attached to AGW is false. In fact the mild warming, in conjuction with the known benefits of CO2 is likely very beneficial.
R. Gates,
The main feedbacks are probably water vapour and clouds and the tropics are the most important region for both.
You are mixing up feedbacks with temperature differences, which may be larger in the arctic, but this is not what the paper is about.
Willis:
You repeatedly say;
“The reality is that the climate system has preferred states and preferred temperatures as a result of a host of homeostatic mechanisms. Chief among them are thunderstorms, the active part of the Great Hadley Solar Powered Air Conditioning, Water Cooling, Ice Making, and Global Circulation Machine.”
I have often said the climate system seems to behave as though it had chaotic strange attractors such that it has prefered states. This would explain several observations:
e.g. the near constant bi-stability (similar temperatures in glacial and interglacial periods) while the thermal input from the Sun has increased by more than 20% over the last 2.5 billion years, the ability of the Milankovitch Cycles to induce transition between glacial and interglacial states, etc.
It seems we have similar views and you say you are a “heretic”. I share your heresy because I am not convinced that a basic assumption of the AGW-hypothesis is true..
That basic assumption (used in the climate models) is that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing. And it is very important to recognise that this assumption has not been demonstrated to be correct. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary. I explain this as follows.
The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium.
The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.
Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour, and it does. Mean global temperature rises by 3.8 deg.C from June to January and falls by 3.8 deg. C from January to June each year.
Importantly, the length of some oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that – at least in principle – is capable of evaluation.
However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (ENSO, NAO, etc.) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.
Your ‘homeostatic mechanisms ‘ may be the mechanisms of this ‘attractor seeking’.
The significant point is the heresy; viz. consideration of the fact that the assumption that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing is unproved and may be wrong. I am a heretic, too.
Richard
Henry@richard
that was a good post. But now, how do you explain the observed warming?
It is about 0.012C/annum – but it is apparently not globally everywhere the same
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I observed cooling where there was de-forestation
and warming where there was forestation
Never mind everybody else here and just assuming I am right,
namely that such a relationship exists between forestation and warming,
then what mechanism do you propose for the warming?
Is it the trapped moisture in the woods or is it somehow the increase in “greenery” that sends a little bit less radiation back into space?
HenryP:
At August 18, 2011 at 2:17 am you ask (I think) me:
“But now, how do you explain the observed warming?
It is about 0.012C/annum – but it is apparently not globally everywhere the same
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I observed cooling where there was de-forestation
and warming where there was forestation
Never mind everybody else here and just assuming I am right,
namely that such a relationship exists between forestation and warming,
then what mechanism do you propose for the warming?
Is it the trapped moisture in the woods or is it somehow the increase in “greenery” that sends a little bit less radiation back into space?”
Firstly, Pielke snr has done much work on the effect on temperature of land use changes. He knows much, much more about this than me, so I suggest you refer to his publications on that subject.
Secondly, and importantly, I could give several possible hypotheses for “the warming”, but that would be a demonstration of false confience. The true answer is, “I don’t know”.
What I will say is that “warming” is certainly not global: HadCRUT3 shows 30% of the globe is cooling (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/04/analysing-the-complete-hadcrut-yields-some-surprising-results/ ).
So, there are many possible reasons for trends of temperature changes at different localities. You suggest land use changes, others will say ocean current changes, others will say variations to the jet stream, etc.. And all such suggestions are probably ‘true’ to some degree for some locations.
As I said, I have been saying for a long time (more than a decade) that climate behaviour seems to be consistent with the global climate being a chaotic system with two main strange attractors. And, as I said in my above post at August 18, 2011 at 1:41 am, this hypothesis explains some observations that are not explained by the hypothesis that global temperature changes are governed by radiative forcing.
So, to me, the work of Willis Eschenbach is important. If his idea of ‘homeostatic mechanisms’ is correct then it fits with my hypothesis of the climate system seeking (but never achieving) its strange attractors, and his work has potential to determine the limits to global climate change around the attractor the system is seeking at present.
Clearly, this response is not the set of answers to your questions which you wanted from me. But this is the best response that I can make. Sorry.
Richard
Matt says: August 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Matt, Whilst you’re right that Hockey Schtick is confusing forcing with sensitivity, I think you’ll have difficulty establishing that the 5.33 constant is a measured value.If fact the provenance of the formula itself is difficult to track down. ‘ΔQ= 6.333 ln (C/C_0) ‘ appears in the First IPPC report, on page 52, and here the constant is 6.33, not 5.35. The formula is cited as having been derived from Wigley, 1987. Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit has tried to track this down but concludes “Once more there’s rather a dead end. Wigley 1987 simply stated his results, rather than deriving them”
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/11/more-on-functional-forms-wigley-1987/
Wigley says “On theoretical grounds it can be shown that the relationship between radiative forcing change at the top of the troposphere and concentration change is linear at low concentrations, square root at intermediate values and logarithmic at higher concentrations. Because of this, the results of detailed radiative transfer calculations for the various trace gases give a linear concentration dependence for CFCs, square root for CH4 and N2) and logarithmic for CO2…..For CO2 over the range 250 ppmv to 600 ppmv, the Kiehl-Dickinson model gives a change in radiative forcing ΔQ, resulting from a concentration change from C_0 to C which can be described by: CO2: ΔQ= 6.333 ln (C/C_0) ” So, if it is based on anything, it is based on a model.
The constant changes from 6.33 to 5.35 in the Third Assessment Report, No cogent reason is given for this change expect that “The already well established and simple functional forms of the expressions used in IPCC (1990), and their excellent agreement with explicit radiative transfer calculations, are strong bases for their continued usage, albeit with revised values of the constants”. Note that ‘very well established’ means no more than it has been around for along time and, after modifying the constant, it now gives excellent agreement with ‘calculations’ – not with empirical measurements.
It seems strange to me that when you try to unravel all these circular cross-references in the IPCC reports you find it is all built on sand.
Steve McIntyre said, in January 2008 “As an innocent bystander to the climate debates a couple of years ago, I presumed that IPCC would provide a clear exposition of how doubled CO2 actually leads to 2.5-3 deg C….Having re-raised the issue in the context of AR4, Judith Curry has said that this sort of issue is not covered in AR4 since it’s baby food. She’s referred us back to the early IPCC reports without providing specific page references”. http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/04/ipcc-on-radiative-forcing-1-ar11990/
R Gates says “.. every single global climate model shows both the greatest effects and greatest positive feedbacks to global warming are first and foremost concentrated in the polor regions (and specifically more the Arctic early on), ”
Do you have a link to anything that supports this contention?
The feedback factor might be higher, but it is operating on lower amounts of insolation.
Richard, thanks!
You are right. “Global” warming does not exist. We just average everything out and then we call it the global average. My finding is also that there was no warming in the SH even though maxima rose the same there as everywhere else. In my opinion that is because there is only a comparatively small amount of landmass in the SH.
Which brought me back to thinking that the warming there in the NH must be caused by more greenery. It cannot be the CO2 because if it were, the warming should be equal NH and SH. (Namely, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is everwhere about the same).
Remember that places like Las Vegas and Johanesburg had no natural rivers so it used to be desert or semi desert. But now, everywhere where man comes, it goes greener.
Remember me when everyone has finally figured out who to blame for the “global warming”.
It was the “greenies” with all their ideas about tree planting and making beautiful green gardens.
Jeeweez, I am actually one of them….
Regards.
Henry
Willis E. says “But it’s not a “feedback mechanism”, ……. It is a control mechanism involving a series of regime shifts. These don’t involve changes in feedback. They involve replacing one circulation system with another system, a new system with different components entirely … that’s not a feedback as I understand feedback. ”
It depends upon what sort of level you are looking at it. Even highly nonlinear systems can often be usefully analyzed as linear or piecewise linear systems. This is even more true when looking at aggregate behavior averaged over time and averaged over area.
An analogy (valid, hopefully) would be a house where one room is controlled by a thermostat. On a short term basis, and looking only at that room, the system doesn’t look linear. But if I look at the whole house, and averaging over a period of several hours, then the system does indeed look linear. If the outside is temperature X, then the average house temp will stabilize at an average of Y. If I add or subtract a few degrees to the outside temperature, the average house temperature will respond in a nearly linear fashion.
——————————————-
It is very likely that a significant component of the negative feedback Lindzen and Choi detect in the ERBE/CERES data is due to the thermostat mechanism you have discussed.
Today’s climate models don’t have the fine spatial and temporal resolution needed to model clouds very well. Unfortunately, it appears that the models don’t even get the average behavior correct in terms of relationship to changes in ocean temperature to outgoing radiation. ( by “average behavior” I mean averaged over several days to weeks, averaged over all tropical oceans).
Willis, while thunderstorms have a thermostatic or regime change type response, I think their effect, can be modeled with reasonable accuracy as a linear system. It appears that as of now, they are left out of the GCMs completely.
Mosh – OK, I would like to buy the whole TCR v ECR from you (although it seems that this raises the whole ‘move the goalposts’ this to a WHOLE new level), but your analogy about the spinning tyres really doesn’t work. When we spin the wheels, we can calculate within a few decimal points where all the energy is going. When we accelerate without spinning the wheels, we can calculate exactly how much energy is needed to overcome the inertia, which is a calculation that we have been able to do lo, these many centuries since Newton. But when we talk about TCR v ECR we suddenly are met with the bother of “Where is all the missing energy?” If the vaunted models really do have the magic formula of how to evolve TCR to ECR, they must know where the energy goes. The only place it can go if TCR is eventually going to become ECR is the oceans. Else it will be out beyond the atmosphere, with no mechanism available by which TCR evolves into ECR. If it is in the oceans, then why are the observations not conclusive in this regard? It seems that the models and the reality are diverging rather than converging. Is the TCR v ECR the only refuge left to the scoundrels? Or am I missing the obvious?
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
Ursus Augustus says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.
—————
So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?
Depends what you mean by “OK.” If you mean is it “OK” to declare a hypothesis is proven beyond all reasonable doubt because of a sought consensus, then no, that’s not “OK.”
If you mean is it ok to simply use the word “consensus” to suggest that one exists – or possibly exists – then of course it is “OK.” I mean, duh!
Suppose that, over the next ten years:
1. Temperatures stay flat or fall.
2. Global greening continues to rise, in step with rising CO2.
Will equity demand that we be paid for the benefit we’ve provided to the atmospheric commons?
Latitude said:
John, you lost me…..
…are you saying that volcanoes, air pollution from China, etc stops global warming….
….and when it starts back up, it just continues the previous trend line?
—————————-
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Is that a trick question?
Large volcanoes like Pinatubo cause cooling due to aerosols for a number of years, but then the effect dies away as the aerosols precipitate out. This is overlaid on the effects of other forcings. Hansen’s scenarios B and C took into account a hypothetical future large eruption, and we actually got Pinatubo. Scenario A assumed no such eruption, which is one reason it is not the relavant scenario. This is all well documented.
====================================================================
John, wouldn’t any cooling from aerosols only mask the warming?
Once the aerosols were gone, wouldn’t the warming jump back up to the previous trend line? and not just start over?
What we see is just the same trend line starting over from a lower level.
Wow temps are taking a freefall see AMSU 600mb (means nothing of course)
Bomber_the_Cat says:
August 18, 2011 at 3:30 am
Matt says: August 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Matt, Whilst you’re right that Hockey Schtick is confusing forcing with sensitivity, I think you’ll have difficulty establishing that the 5.33 constant is a measured value.If fact the provenance of the formula itself is difficult to track down. ‘ΔQ= 6.333 ln (C/C_0) ‘ appears in the First IPPC report, on page 52, and here the constant is 6.33, not 5.35. The formula is cited as having been derived from Wigley, 1987. Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit has tried to track this down but concludes “Once more there’s rather a dead end. Wigley 1987 simply stated his results, rather than deriving them”
The 5.35 constant was, as far as I know, derived by Myhre et al using a number of radiative transfer models. These models are proven in that they are able to reproduce earth’s emission spectra almost exactly.
Most climate scientists ( warmer or sceptic) seem to accept the Myhre formula. Some time ago, I exchanged emails with Jack Barrett, an expert in IR spectroscopy and a moderate ‘sceptic’ since the early 1990s. Jack told me that the Myhre formula agreed with his own calculations.
Just to reinforce the main point here. It is not the actual forcing, i.e. 3.7 w/m2 per 2xCO2, which is in dispute, it is the temperature response (i.e. climate sensitivity) to that forcing.
Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer et al believe that climate sensitivity, due to low or negative feedback, is much lower than that claimed by the IPCC (~0.75 deg/w/m2) . Gavin Schmidt et al claim that paleo data suggests a large feedback. Both arguments have merit though, to be fair to the ‘warmers’, it is difficult to explain 5+ deg shifts in temperature during glacial/interglacial periods without the inclusion of a positive feedback factor.
@richard S Courtney
Hey Richard,
Just saw your comment. I am with you on this. Maybe I didn’t succeed in articulating what I was trying to say:
There are some folks who make sweeping critiques aimed at undermining the ability of climatologists to even make direct measurements of sensitivity. Often, that skepticism is *only* directed at the results that they don’t like, and it melts away when they get a number that is convenient to their worldview.
Like you, I disagree with sweeping generalizations that undermine climate science’s claim to objective observational measurements. All I was saying is that the same people who claim direct measurements of sensitivity are *not possible*, should consider that the same critiques would then apply to Lindzen, even if they want to believe his particular result. And, at the end of the day, these sorts of general critiques are over-stated.
Whether or not Lindzen’s measurement is correct depends on the particular details of his methodology and assumptions. It is beyond my expertise to make those judgments. However, I should say that some of the folks posting on this thread have made some very interesting and clearly knowledgable comments on both sides of that discussion.
I am curious as to when and what response Lindzen and Choi’s paper “On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications” will invoke from Realclimate. Any thoughts are predictions?
The observed lack of warming supports Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of satellite data that clearly shows the planet’s response to a forcing change is negative (cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist the change) as opposed to positive (planet amplifies forcing changes).
1) Keep head in sand and hope no one notices?
2) Criticize the journal for publishing the paper?
3) Phone friends and start campaign to boycott journal.
4) Appeal to the 1000s of other scientists and papers that support extreme AGW without explaining how that statement is relevant to the issue of whether the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (atmospheric processes, clouds increase or decrease to resist change) or positive (atmospheric processes amplify the forcing change).
5) Ask journalist friend to publish a non-scientific article in Nature that accuses any independent climate researcher of being paid by big oil or being a Republican. (i.e. Try to change the conversation from the satellite data that clearly supports negative feedback to an us vs them paradigm. i.e. Continue campaign of propaganda under the banner of climate scientists to save the world.
6) Business as usual. Continue to advocate spending trillions of dollars on boondoggle schemes that will have no net benefit to humanity, that will not reduce energy consumption, and that will not protect environment. (i.e. There is a limit to how much governments can spend.)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
@ Bomber_the_Cat
Hey. Thanks for the thoughts on that. I will have to read up more on that. But to clarify my main points to HockeySchtick (besides the fact that he was confusing forcing with sensitivity and temperature):
Whether or not there are details regarding the exact values for that formula, I don’t think that that is a significant point of contention for Linzen…
I will suggest that the claim made by the IPCC that the forcing equation is “well established” is referring to the logarithmic form of the equation, not the specific value of the constant. The form of that equation (as I’ve argued) *is* well established. Measuring the constant (I think) is more complicated…which is why I wouldn’t be totally surprised if its value changed with time….
Larry Goldberg — “…“Where is all the missing energy?” If the vaunted models really do have the magic formula of how to evolve TCR to ECR, they must know where the energy goes. The only place it can go if TCR is eventually going to become ECR is the oceans. Else it will be out beyond the atmosphere, with no mechanism available by which TCR evolves into ECR.”
As I understand it, the main reason TCR differs from ECS in the intermediate (10 to 100 year) timeframe is due to energy going into the deep ocean.
One difficulty is that there are several definitions of TCR. The IPCC definition is the sensitivity as measured after CO2 has doubled while rising 1% per year. It takes roughly 70 years to double when increased at this rate. For most models, the TCR is about 50% of the ECS. See AR4 WG1 Chapter 8 table 8.2. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
An interesting note on table 8.2 is “The ocean heat uptake efficiency (W m–2 °C–1), discussed in Chapter 10, may be roughly estimated as F2x x (TCR–1 – ECS–1), where F2x is the radiative forcing for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Supplementary Material, Table 8.SM.1)”
As I understand it, this statement is equivalent to saying that the difference between TCR and ECS is primarily ocean heat uptake. If I use the GISS-ER ECS and TCR numbers of 2.7C/doubling and 1.5CF/doubling, and use 3.7 W m–2 °C–1 for F2x, then I calculate that the ocean heat uptake in that model should be around 1.1 W m-2. That doesn’t correspond to the 0.6 to 0.85 W m-2 reported elsewhere, Table 8.1 in the supplementary material lists F2x for GISS-ER as 4.06 W m-2. Using that instead of 3.7 increases the expected ocean heat uptake to 1.2W/m-2.
Am I misreading or misinterpreting AR4 ??
“Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:13 pm
To estimate the ECR you have two choices: paleo and modelling.
The work of myself and others (here and here) have shown that the models are functionally equivalent to a linear response to the forcing with a short (a few years) time constant. So contrary to your claim, the models can tell us nothing about a hundred year response. They are fully equivalent to and give identical results to those calculated by a linear forcing response plus a short time lag.
w.”
Willis is perfectly correct. Climate models are useless as predictive tools for long time scales. The perfect analogy is the game of golf. Say you went back to 30-years after golf first became an established game. You are then asked to build a model to explain why in those 30-years the ball is now landing farther and more centered in the fairway. You start by building a machine with the tools you had then to emulate the human being driving the ball so you can hit 100 balls “consistently” and measure the distance and spread. You tweak your machine’s parameters so that it is consistent with the 100-ball spread at the beginning of golf.
Then how do you explain the increase in distance and narrower spread 30 year’s later? Well, the ball design improved, you change the ball and this gets you closer to the new numbers but not close enough. Then you change the club, that too has changed and you get another increase, again not enough. Now you turn to the machine, improve the accuracy of the machine still not enough, then add more weight (speed to the club head- Forcing for you climate people ) and presto! You’re there. You have a match for 30-years worth of observations. Congratulations.
You conclude that changes in ball and club design, plus the better conditioning and experience of the players accounts for the changes – all correct by the way. One small problem, you are equating the inefficiencies of your golf machine, which you fixed, and the subsequent error spread in the 100 golf balls to the complexity of a human golf swing – oops.
Now comes the big problem. You are asked to predict the distance and spread of the 100 golf balls 100-years into the future. You can extrapolate those three parameters, and those three only, and come up with a number, and you would be wrong. Every time. Why? you could not predict the new materials and computer designs for the golf ball, the graphite shafts and cnc machined, larger, computer designed club heads on the golf club, let alone where humans would be in the practice of the game, their physical competence, etc.
The predictive model is useless because you cannot predict future changes in the system from parameter changes that are unknown to you at the time, that will surely account for more or less distance and spread….
Best,
J.
@ Richard111
Of course the NIP instrument reports zero incoming SW radiation at night or with heavy clouds. What I found interesting is that a local university professor told us that the most surface radiation we could expect here was 950 watts/m^2. Probably on average that is true but we have seen over 1000 watts/m^2 on dry Fall days (and once in awhile as much as 1100 w/m^2). One of the solar furnace students I know was working on a problem that required the solar insolation value and attempted to use the measured value (it was higher than 950) for that day and there was a small argument over it.
Bernie
The oceans act like a giant sponge that sucks up the result of any radiative forcing, for a long, long time. The result of our recent expulsion of CO2 gas cannot be apparent yet. If there are any measurable changes, such as in the ’90s, they are not from radiative processes. The only thing that can act on short enough time scales to produce a short cycle temperature change is ocean currents. Bastardi’s graph of temps vs ENSO + AMO illustrates this. My estimate of the time constant for radiative changes is 3500 years. That means that for a step change in radiative forcing, after 3500 years only 62 percent of the ultimate change will be apparent. A 50 year step change in CO2 or a 10 year solar cycle haven’t even got traction yet and may be vanishingly small to start with. My answer to those who think they see a short range temperature signal is: temporary local disequilibrium.
I argue that the control mechanisms, not feedbacks but homeostatic control mechanisms, are largely concentrated in the tropics. Not only that, but I can tell you why they are there. In any heat engine, the first and main control mechanism is the throttle. It controls the incoming fuel/energy entering the hot end of the heat engine.
For the heat engine we call the earths climate, the hot end of the heat engine is the tropics. Controlling the polar albedo would do little to control the global temperature. Controlling the tropical albedo, on the other hand, is the major throttling mechanism for reducing solar energy entering the system.
The throttle is in the tropics because that’s where the energy enters the system, at the hot end of the heat engine.
_____
Willis,
I think this notion of a “throttle” in the tropical cloud cycle is a valid one for diurnal effects, but lacks the larger system feedbacks that the climate clearly displays, and especially as displayed in the Polar Amplification of general global warming. Amplification involves feedbacks, positive ones of multiple types. To suggest this isn’t occurring is to deny what many research studies have shown.
I am somewhat astounded, that in such a crucial and fundamental expression: delta Forcing = 5.35*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) the derivative explanations of 6.33/5.35, is unknown (by us), with any certainty.
Is this purely ignorance on our part or has it’s provenance truly been withheld? How can any argument employ this expression with-out knowing exactly how it was or wasn’t derived.
Someone can surely put this matter to rest, conclusively. Has this not come up before? GK
John Finn says:
Just to reinforce the main point here. It is not the actual forcing, i.e. 3.7 w/m2 per 2xCO2, which is in dispute, it is the temperature response (i.e. climate sensitivity) to that forcing.
Henry@John
I am – and I have been – disputing exactly that very 3.7W/m2 per 2 CO2… There is no scientific basis for that result except that it has been derived in hindsight (from observed global warming versus increases in GHG’s) by people believing Arrhenius and Tyndall were right. But they were wrong. So this whole paper is also wrong. Because it starts off by assuming this figure is right.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
If you took the trouble (like me) to actually take a random sample of 15 terrestial stations and carefully look at the results of the temperatures (including maxima and minima) over the years you would have to conclude:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
1) SH is not warming al all but the NH is, even though maxima are increasing at the same rate, globally. How can that be? It proves that CO2 has nothing to do with the warming (because CO2 has the same concentration everywhere)
2) It is cooling where there is much de-forestation (Argentina) and it is warming where there is much forestation (Norway). SH does not have much land mass but NH has.
We have comprehensive proof of much increased vegetation over the years, especially in the NH.
Taken together, these results clearly suggest (and I challenge all of you to check this):
the observed “global” warming (which is not global at all) is due to increased vegetation.
the only other argument you could bring against this conclusion is some effect from urban heat and removal of snow by man, during winters, but I think those effects are too little to make much of a difference.
“. . . especially as displayed in the Polar Amplification of general global warming.È
Funny how the Alarmists always forget there are TWO poles on the planet!
Jose Suro says:
August 18, 2011 at 6:36 am
Brilliant analogy!
The discussion on this post about the new article by Lindzen and Choi reveals the very best about the role of scepticism in science. Sceptics have achieved critical mass. Anyone who doubts that WUWT is the scientifically focused sceptic blog will undergo a change of mind after reading this post and comments. Congratulations!
HenryP says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:32 am
John Finn says:
Just to reinforce the main point here. It is not the actual forcing, i.e. 3.7 w/m2 per 2xCO2, which is in dispute, it is the temperature response (i.e. climate sensitivity) to that forcing.
Henry@John
I am – and I have been – disputing exactly that very 3.7W/m2 per 2 CO2… There is no scientific basis for that result except that it has been derived in hindsight (from observed global warming versus increases in GHG’s) by people believing Arrhenius and Tyndall were right. But they were wrong. So this whole paper is also wrong. Because it starts off by assuming this figure is right.
The 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t come from Arrhenuis or Tyndall. It comes from the line by line calculations using radiative transfer equations. These equations use the basic physics of Beer Lambert and Planck and have been validated by observations.
The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the average height at which energy is emitted to space. This means energy is emitted from a colder region which, in turn, means the energy emitted is reduced (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). We then have an imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing LW energy, i.e. incoming > outgoing, and so the earth warms until equilibrium is established.
Please don’t tell us that back radiation is not possible. This is clearly nonsense. We can see from emission spectra that CO2 radiates energy from the drier, colder layers of the atmosphere. Are you saying it only radiates from one side?
RE : My post dated August 18, 2011 at 8:18 am
Apologies to Henry P who does not appear to be saying that back radiation is not possible. On his linked blog, he does, though, seem to be implying that absorption of solar energy by CO2 results in cooling which offsets the warming from the absorption of terrestrial radiation.
I hope I’ve got this right. I look forward to some calculations which measure this effect.
Jenn Oates says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I JUST talked about this today, in my discussion about the scientific method and how scientific illiteracy and bad science can lead to extremely damaging (not to mention expensive) social policy. I even recommended WUWT, putting the URL on the board for students who care to go beyond what they hear on CNN. I’m not even diplomatic any more–MY students at least will have heard what is really going on, and hopefully stop bringing me weekly science articles about AGW and how it’s going to ruin the planet.
Takes a lot to ruin a planet, turns out. 🙂
Hope you don’t teach in Kalifornia… This could get you fired… Hey, since I also have a science cred, I could get your job… But then I would get fired for doing the same thing!!! 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:41 pm
So the process continues. It’s early days, I’ve been a lone voice crying “thermostat” in the wilderness…
It makes a whole lot of sense to me, O’ Merciless One, and your persistent and ever more complete explaining of it reminds me a little of your “dirt devil”, finally fighting its way out into the open for people to at least see and behold before moving on further into the unknown.
But my related question is, given the mechanisms involved in the funtioning of the “thermostat”, why is it even necessary for CO2 to exist within this schema, and/or why would CO2 produce “ghg” effects much or even any more pronounced or drastic than water vapor already has or could, given the presence of a nearly infinite supply for it? I’ve been obsessing about my question, now for nigh onto 8 years!
[Independently from your schema, I think, that CO2 “residence time” argument makes no sense to me; nor does the idea that water vapor isn’t “well mixed”, especially since Climate Science relies upon water vapor for its apparently completely ad hoc boost to climate “sensitivity”.]
Thanks in advance for any comments, I’ve got to be out in the quasi-boondocks for a few days, darnit.
John Finn says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:18 am
HenryP says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:32 am
John Finn says:
Just to reinforce the main point here. It is not the actual forcing, i.e. 3.7 w/m2 per 2xCO2, which is in dispute, it is the temperature response (i.e. climate sensitivity) to that forcing.
….
The 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t come from Arrhenuis or Tyndall. It comes from the line by line calculations using radiative transfer equations. These equations use the basic physics of Beer Lambert and Planck and have been validated by observations.
The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the average height at which energy is emitted to space. This means energy is emitted from a colder region which, in turn, means the energy emitted is reduced (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). We then have an imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing LW energy, i.e. incoming > outgoing, and so the earth warms until equilibrium is established.
Nice theory. Conventional CAGW theory. Which is useful for getting many billions in government money for government “science” projects so that government can control the economies and gather 1.3 trillion in additional taxes ….
But, you see, that “radiation increase” in the (cooler) upper atmosphere required to balance the “increased blanket” of increased CO2 levels has been very thoroughly measured (by satellites) and has NOT been found. It is not happening.
Which conventionally and very thoroughly invalidates that nice conventional CAGW theory, doesn’t it?
John Finn says
The 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t come from Arrhenuis or Tyndall. It comes from the line by line calculations using radiative transfer equations. These equations use the basic physics of Beer Lambert and Planck and have been validated by observations.
Henry@John
Yes, I do believe you are right on that point, but they only looked at the the part where earth emits predominantly. They never looked at any cooling effect caused by the CO2.
Most scientists I queried on this, (like Alley) did not even know or realize that CO2 also has near IR, IR and UV absorptions (by which we can identifiy it on other planets). They also gave a completely wrong account of how they thought “absorption” and subsequent heat entrapment works.
I also doubt the line by line analysis of spectra because it cannot possibly give me an actual result in W/m2. You cannot possibly “calculate” in W/m2 from spectra what you have never first measured. But correct me if you think I am wrong.
You also say:
I hope I’ve got this right. I look forward to some calculations which measure this effect.
Henry@John
You are joking, right?
I have been looking for those results for almost 2 years. I could not find them. So, I figured (rightly so, it appears, at least from where I am standing, after looking at all the balls on my own table) everybody can be completely wrong about the poor carbon dioxide.
If you think about it long enough, then water and carbon dioxide is like your mother and father.
So, never say anything wrong about your mother and father, OK?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Septic Matthew dislikes Willis Eschenbach’s use of the term : ‘homeostatic mechanisms’
He states:-
“If you’d write “feedback mechanisms” instead of “homeostatic mechanisms” I’d say you were onto something. “Homeostatic” is more appropriate for biological organisms that have evolved by a process of random variation and natural selection”
I suggest that a pan of water on a stove top uses a ‘homeostatic mechanism’ to maintain its temperature, despite increase in heat input.
Temperature is not maintained in boiling water due to a “feedback mechanism”, indeed there are many homeostatic mechanisms that do not depend on feedback mechanisms, the impact of E=mV2 on maximal velocity comes to mind.
John Finn says “The 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t come from Arrhenuis or Tyndall. It comes from the line by line calculations using radiative transfer equations.”
The only problem according to Herman Harde (whose main work continues to be in German) is that if you use the latest HITRAN 2008 data you get a much smaller forcing than if you use the previous HITRAN data used in the alarmist warming models.
On the face of it (reading from the German) the HITRAN 2008 forcing is as much as 50% less than previous versions. Add to that the cooling effect of CO2 from evaporative transportation of energy up to the stratosphere where CO2 assisted emittance into space becomes significant, and there is no doubt that the simple facts which keeps getting quoted as “settled science” are way out.
R. Gates says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:29 am
R. Gates, I’d need much more information to move on those claims. “Amplification involves feedbacks, positive ones of multiple types. To suggest this isn’t occurring is to deny what many research studies have shown.” Sounds good, but without information, that means nothing. What research studies, what feedbacks, what amplification, what have the studies shown?
Thanks,
w.
JPeden says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:40 am
Me, I love the quasi-boondocks …
In any case, given the mechanisms involved in the thermostat, I don’t think that the known effects of GHGs make any difference to the temperature or the thermostat mechanism I propose.
Regarding CO2, please don’t mix up the residence time, and the time it takes for a pulse of CO2 to decay back to the starting point (half-life or e-folding time).
Regarding water vapor, it is most definitely not “well mixed” in the atmosphere.
w.
Bernie McCune says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:02 am
Once again thanks for the input Bernie. A bunch of guys who haven’t a clue what a NIP is are trying to discus them here:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1369-post-9881.html#pid9881
Have a look. If you are interested we would very much like to hear about your experiences with these gadgets. You don’t have to join, if you wish to comment use the guest forum.
Matt says:
Whether or not there are details regarding the exact values for that formula, I don’t think that that is a significant point of contention for Linzen…
Perhaps you missed my latest comment that shows the conversion – per the IPCC – between forcing and temperature i.e. climate sensitivity here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#comment-722054
which shows the “IPCC formula” you claim Lindzen agrees with should have, based on Lindzen’s paper, a fudge factor of 1.2 instead of 5.35, in other words exaggerates the effect of CO2 by a factor of 4.4 times. Do you understand why you cannot therefore claim that Lindzen does not dispute the “IPCC formula?”
Also, still waiting on the reference you claim to have that the 5.35 fudge factor is actually based on direct measurements.
As always; I stand awestruck in the face of real scientists doing real science.
steven mosher says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
If Hansen is looking at the million year response, why do all of his press releases talk about temperatures over the next few decades?
Excuse me, but doesn’t that mean it is even more important, that we completely understand, how it was derived? If it works, we certainly want to know why? Don’t we? GK
Len Ornstein says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:34 pm
1) Not much sunshine falls on the poles.
2) There has been no observed trend indicating a loss of ice cover.
3) Seasonal observations show that when ice decreases, the extra water vapor causes clouds to increase.
Overall, the so called polar amplification does not exist.
One thing I find funny is that many of the people who demand that we cut our lifestyles NOW, in order to protect our children, have absolutely no problem with govt running up trillions in debt.
“So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?”
A consensus is a poll of the state of current thinking. It is not, never has been, and never will be, proof of anything.
John W says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:32 pm
He was half right, in that CO2 growth rates sort of matched his prediction B.
He was half right, in that temperature change sort of matched prediction C.
So obviously, two half rights added together equals a whole right.
John Finn says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:28 am
RE : My post dated August 18, 2011 at 8:18 am
Apologies to Henry P who does not appear to be saying that back radiation is not possible. On his linked blog, he does, though, seem to be implying that absorption of solar energy by CO2 results in cooling which offsets the warming from the absorption of terrestrial radiation.
I hope I’ve got this right. I look forward to some calculations which measure this effect.
It’s more than just absorption of solar energy. It’s any energy that gets into the atmosphere from other sources than radiation. The more CO2, the more this energy is radiated to space. This is what I have been calling the “cooling effect” of CO2 for months. It’s nice to see that HenryP has been looking at this in more detail than I have.
If you accept the KT07 energy budget this total energy is about 1/2 of the energy radiated from the surface. So, the impact of this “cooling effect” could be 50% of the GHG “warming effect”. But, I suspect it may be even higher. In fact, it may completely negate the “warming effect” since it works in 3 dimensions vs. 2.
R. Gates says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm
This one line from this new paper:
Sorry, wrong answer. They can argue all they want, but as every single global climate model shows both the greatest effects and greatest positive feedbacks to global warming are first and foremost concentrated in the polor regions
—–
Once again, when reality disagrees with the models, reality is in error.
” it is difficult to explain 5+ deg shifts in temperature during glacial/interglacial periods without the inclusion of a positive feedback factor.”
There is a positive feedback. All of that ice melting.
Fast forward to today. The ice is almost all melted. The remaining ice is in places where either little sunlight falls, or places that are far enough below freezing that huge temperature increases will be needed to get it to melt.
The amount of ice in temperate latitudes and exists in places close to the freezing line, are small enough to be ignored.
With most of the ice already gone, that particular feedback has run it’s course.
pochas says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:27 am
Are you actually trying to argue that 100% of the “heat” that results from extra CO2 is sucked up by the oceans, and that until the oceans are “full”, there will be no atmospheric heating?
If there is no atmospheric heating, how do the oceans start warming up in the first place?
How exactly do the oceans suck up heat from CO2 in continental interiors, a 1000 miles or more from any ocean?
Willis wrote: “Regarding writing it up, did that already, it was peer-reviewed and published in Energy and Environment a year or so ago.”
Sorry I missed it. I’ll get it. And congratulations on the publication. Any published comments, critiques from atmospheric scientists?
Willis wrote: “But it’s not a “feedback mechanism”, Matthew. It is a control mechanism involving a series of regime shifts. These don’t involve changes in feedback.
…
But at least people are starting to discuss the question about the underlying paradigm describing climate. Linear, or thermostatic?”
I think that you are mixing up distinctions. First, there is the designed (“thermostat”) vs biologically selected (“homeostatic”) vs non-teleological (“self-organizing”.) It is one thing to say that a hurricane happens because of the laws of physics and thermodynamics, but another thing to say that the hurricane happens because it serves the purpose of maintaining the earth in a particular region of phase space.
Second, you mix up “linear vs nonlinear” with “teleological vs non-teleological” (or purposeful vs. non-purposeful.) I suppose that we are all our own lexicographers to some degree, but to write (as someone else did) that boiling water has a “homeostatic” mechanism because water vaporizes instead of increasing temperature is a perversion of “homeostatic” and “homeostasis”. I think it perverts the notion of “thermostat” to say that the climate system has a “thermostat”. A religious person might say that a reasonably stable climate is evidence that God designed the world for us, thus justifying the use of the word “thermostat”; but I think that a scientific claim is merely that the system dynamics operate to keep the system always within a definable (potentially) finite region of the phase space.
Lastly, about “changes in feedbacks”. If the temperature increases produce increases in atmospheric water content, and those changes produce increases in cloud cover in the daytime, and those daytime cloud cover increases reduce insolation, and the reduction in insolation produces a reduction in temperature, and the reduction in temperature produces a reduction in daytime cloud cover that … produces an increase in temperature, then all you have is a feedback loop and not a series of regime shifts. The processes that you describe entail lots of feedbacks (energy flows), but not necessarily any series of “regime shifts”, as the system moves through its phase space.
So in conclusion, I would recommend that you focus your narration on explicating the processes with increased precision, but avoid teleological language.
Also, you might like the book “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate” by Marcel Leroux, which describes some of the energy flows in the climate system.
Mark Wilson says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm
pochas says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:27 am
“Are you actually trying to argue that 100% of the “heat” that results from extra CO2 is sucked up by the oceans, and that until the oceans are “full”, there will be no atmospheric heating?”
Regretfully, I have to retract that comment. Major math error. It now looks like the time constant is only 3.5 years, so short cycle thermal effects should be easily detectable.
Retracted: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#comment-722329
Consensus is relevant to politics; irrelevant to science. Observations are relevant to science. What is real can be universally and consistently be observed.
pochas says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I hope that the next time I make an error, I can be half as gracious.
John Finn says:
August 18, 2011 at 6:07 am
John, thanks for your response. I broadly agree with everything you say apart from perhaps the last sentence “to be fair to the ‘warmers’, it is difficult to explain 5+ deg shifts in temperature during glacial/interglacial periods without the inclusion of a positive feedback factor”.
Over the past few million years we know that this planet has oscillated between glacial maxima (commonly called ice ages) and glacial minima (inter-glacial periods). This cycle repeats over a period of about 100,000 years. There have been a series of about 30 ice ages, interspersed with inter-glacials, as far as we know.The Vostok ice core record provides us with evidence of this and a measure of the temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last few ice ages.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
It is not plausible to explain the temperature swings from ice ages to inter-glacial peaks in terms of ‘feedback’. For instance, from the ice core record, we can see that the world begins its plunge into an ice age when the CO2 levels are at a maximum, then it pulls out of them when the CO2 levels are at a minimum. Obviously, there is some other mechanism here which must be much more powerful than any feedback effects (because it overrides and reverses them) It is somewhat illogical, therefore, to ascribe such temperature swings to feedback. There is something else happening (feedback may play a small part, but cannot be the dominant factor).
As an aside, I know that people often say that the difference between an inter-glacial and an ice age is only 5 Deg.C. but, unless I have forgotten how to read a graph, you can see from the Vostok ice core and the GISP ice core record that the difference between maxima and minima is about 10 deg.C. (maybe It just depends at what temperature you declare an ice age).
It may be worth mentioning that when evidence of a warming world, glaciers retreating, ice caps melting, sea levels rising etc, are presented as proof of man-made climate change, all these phenomena commenced when the last ice age ended, 15,000 years ago – it is unlikely that human kind were responsible.
Mark Wilson says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm
R. Gates says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm
This one line from this new paper:
Sorry, wrong answer. They can argue all they want, but as every single global climate model shows both the greatest effects and greatest positive feedbacks to global warming are first and foremost concentrated in the polor regions
—–
Once again, when reality disagrees with the models, reality is in error.
____
As we are seeing a greater degree of warming in the Arctic and many different positive feedbacks, it seems reality and the general trends indicated by the models are both quite in agreement– and this fact seems to drive skeptics a bit nuts.
I think we’re flying past the point here; he made predictions (more accurately termed projections) of three different scenarios of future emissions (A,B,C) without any prediction of which scenario would happen. For an analogy, if I were to be giving you driving directions along the East coast of USA I might make a prediction of how long it would take for three different routes: I95=12hours, US1=15 hours, US17=20 hours. I’m not making any prediction of which route you’ll take, what I’m predicting is the time it’ll take for each route. Similarly, Hansen predicted (projected) what the global average temperature would be for each “route” of emission possibilities. So, if we had followed Hansen’s advice, right now in perception he would be the savior of the world but in reality a con artist. Without the ability to go back in time it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that Hansen’s projection for “business as usual” would not have happened had we not went with “business as usual”.
Mark Wilson says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Len Ornstein says:
August 17, 2011 at 12:34 pm
1) Not much sunshine falls on the poles.
2) There has been no observed trend indicating a loss of ice cover.
3) Seasonal observations show that when ice decreases, the extra water vapor causes clouds to increase.
Overall, the so called polar amplification does not exist.
____
To point 1) define what you mean by “not much”. Not a scientific statement. Certainly the poles get less sunlight than the equator, but polar amplification of overall global warming is already happening.
To point 2) Clearly quite incorrect, and not one Arctic Sea ice expert would back you up on this absurd statement.
To point 3) The net annual effect of cloud cover increase in the Arctic (since it gets less insolation anyway) has a completely different effect than cloud cover increase over the tropics. In winter, cloud cover increases surface temperature in the Arctic on a pretty consistent basis.
Overall, the “so-called” polar amplification effect is far more than “so-called”. It is a real phenomenon.
John Finn said:
“The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the average height at which energy is emitted to space. This means energy is emitted from a colder region which, in turn, means the energy emitted is reduced (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).”
That puzzles me but I may have misunderstood.
More CO2 means more energy in the air which warms and so the tropopause rises due to the lapse rate. So far so good. But then one has a higher temperature at a greater height so energy is not being emitted from a colder region, merely a region that WAS colder BEFORE the extra CO2 was added.
Doesn’t that imply that more energy is being emitted rather than less ?
JPeden says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:40 am
“But my related question is, given the mechanisms involved in the funtioning of the “thermostat”, why is it even necessary for CO2 to exist within this schema, and/or why would CO2 produce “ghg” effects much or even any more pronounced or drastic than water vapor already has or could, given the presence of a nearly infinite supply for it? I’ve been obsessing about my question, now for nigh onto 8 years!”
I think I share your concerns, though my perspective might be different. I would like to know what overlaps or conflicts exist between Willis’ theory and the “mainstream” theory/model/thingy held by “mainstream” climate scientists.
My guess is that the “mainstream” thingy cannot account for what Willis describes. The mainstream model/theory/thingy was created to show that manmade CO2 causes a rise in Earth’s radiation budget and, thereby, a rise in global temperatures. It really does not address anything else. It does not imply physical hypotheses about the natural processes that make up Earth’s climate. Willis’ account of his “homeostatic system” is a set of physical hypotheses which describe the inner workings and interactions among three linked systems that are permanent features of Earth’s climate (to within an ice age). Willis’ theory does not address Earth’s radiation budget, though his “homeostatic system” might set some limits to claims about the effects of rising radiation. It seems to me that Willis and the Warmista are talking about different things; that is, Warmista have a “radiation only” account of Earth’s temperature and Willis has an account of natural phenomena, apart from radiation, whose behavior tends to maintain Earth’s temperature in a narrow range.
My hunch is that Willis has the advantage. Willis has physical hypotheses about climate. By contrast, Warmista have no physical hypotheses about climate apart from their claims about radiation, but all the supposed feedbacks are found in the behavior of the natural processes that make up Earth’s climate, natural processes such as the behavior of clouds or the behavior of Willis’ homeostatic system. To address the feedbacks that are necessary to explain dangerous increases in Earth’s radiation budget, Warmista must create physical hypotheses along the lines of those created by Willis. The fact that Warmista have no such physical hypotheses and no plans to do the research necessary to create them is why I contend that Warmista are neither physical scientists nor empirical researchers. They are more akin to metaphysicians.
R. Gates says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:29 am
“and especially as displayed in the Polar Amplification of general global warming. Amplification involves feedbacks, positive ones of multiple types. ”
No. Amplification requires an AMPLIFIER; you usually use a NEGATIVE feedback to reduce the amplification to the level you need. Here is a simple amplifier without feedback:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electronic_Amplifier_Class_A.png
You have an input signal, an amplifying element, in this case a transistor, and a power source. That’s it. No feedback.
Here is a very common way of using an OpAmp with a negative feedback to control the level of amplification. Without feedback, the OpAmp can be seen as an amplifier with practically unlimited amplification. Due to the added negative feedback, the amplification can be reduced to the level you need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operational_amplifier_noninverting.svg
Willis says:
R. Gates, I’d need much more information to move on those claims. “Amplification involves feedbacks, positive ones of multiple types. To suggest this isn’t occurring is to deny what many research studies have shown.” Sounds good, but without information, that means nothing. What research studies, what feedbacks, what amplification, what have the studies shown?
___
A few studies, representing multiple positive feedback paths for polar amplification:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3297.1
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.C13B0553L
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/abs/nature09051.html
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/MET/Faculty/jff/2010_10%20Role%20of%20synoptic%20eddy%20feedback%20on%20polar%20climate%20responses%20to%20the%20anthropogenic%20forcing.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMGC41B0902C
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110000405
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/4/1295.short
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMGC52A..07D
R. Gates,
you are still on the wrong track.
This paper is about the total energy budget. And regarding the arctic (you say polar but antarctic is behaving differently anyways) 2 things matter most:
1. The arctic is small compared with the tropics
2. The arctic receives much less energy per area than the tropics
1+2 combined mean: the arctic is negligible in a total energy budget, even if feedbacks there would be strongly positive.
(And recent findings have even put that assumptions into question, as siginificant negative feedbacks have been identified, such as ocean heat loss without ice cover.}
R Gates:
And here’s why increased cloud formation in the Arctic acts as a negative feedback that “may overwhelm” positive feedback:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015804.shtml
While R. Gates on August 18, 2011 at 5:08 pm is trying his hand at literature bluffing about Arctic “amplification” I’d simply as everyone to take a look at the average surface temperature record for the Arctic (satellite temperature record from 1979) and ask yourself if it looks “amplified”.
A picture is worth a thousand literature bluffs…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
David Springer, you showed that the Arctic warmed by 1 degree in the last 30 years which is twice the global average. Is that the point you were making? This shows the sea-ice albedo feedback quite well to me.
Thanks Willis, you realise if you’re on the right track with your heresy then we may one day have an accurate 3-5 day weather forcast.
Hockey Schtick says:
August 18, 2011 at 6:16 pm
R Gates:
And here’s why increased cloud formation in the Arctic acts as a negative feedback that “may overwhelm” positive feedback:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015804.shtml
———-
Did you read the final line if the abstract? “if the cloudiness increases in the summertime.”
Clouds in the arctic can be strongly warming in the wintertime and prevent the loss of heat to space. The net effects of all feedbacks in the arctic during a warming world is positive.
The following is meant as critique of the argument that is made by Lindzen & Choi in their article (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf.) I’m about to show that this argument is not a “scientific” argument from the non-falsifiability of one of its premises. L&C base their argument upon the premise that in the absence of feedback:
ΔT = G * ΔF –(1)
where ΔF is the “radiative forcing” from the change in the CO2 concentration, ΔT is the change in the steady state global surface temperature and G is a constant.
To understand what I’m about to say one needs to grasp the mathematical ideas of a “Cartesian product,” a “relation” and a “functional relation.” The Cartesian product of ΔF with ΔT is the complete set of ordered pairs of the numerical values of ΔF and ΔT in which the first of the two values of each pair belongs to ΔF and the second to ΔT. By definition, a “relation” from ΔF to ΔT is a non-empty subset of the Cartesian project of ΔF with ΔT. A “functional relation” from ΔF to ΔT is relation in which for every value of ΔF there is exactly one value of ΔT. A “linear functional relation” from ΔF to ΔT is a functional relation for which ΔT = C * ΔF + D, where C and D are constants. Equation (1) is an example of a linear functional relation from ΔF to ΔT.
What is the basis for the claim by L&C of the existence of a linear functional relation? L^C cite Schwartz (2007) and Hartmann (1994). I’ve not read the earlier of the two works. Schwartz does not attribute the functionality or linearity to facts or logic. He attributes it to a convention (see http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf. top of p. 5). However, there are alternatives to this convention. In particular, the relation from ΔF to ΔT could be: a) non-existent, b) functional but non-linear or c) ambiguous. By “ambiguous” I mean that for one or more values of ΔF there are several values of ΔT.
As there are alternatives to the linear functional relation that is stated by equation (1), the
statement that is made by equation (1) might be true or false. However, as ΔT is not an observable feature of the real world, equation (1) is non-falsifiable thus lying outside science. Thus, the argument that is made by L&C in their article is not a scientific argument.
I wonder whether Lindzen and Choi had to give any of the paper’s integrity in order to get it by the hostile peer-reviewers
Terry Oldberg:
At August 18, 2011 at 9:43 pm you say:
“The following is meant as critique of the argument that is made by Lindzen & Choi in their article (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf.) I’m about to show that this argument is not a “scientific” argument from the non-falsifiability of one of its premises. …”
The equation you dispute is a fundamental precept of the AGW theory and it is presented as being ‘true’ by the IPCC. It indicates an amount of global warming as a function of a change to radiative forcing.
Lindzen & Choi have measured a parameter used in that equation. Then, in their article, Lindzen & Choi apply the value they derive in the equation and, thus, demonstrate that AGW would be unlikely to be a problem according to the IPCC’s argument. This demonstration by Lindzen & Choi is pefectly “scientific”.
If you think using the equation is “not a “scientific” argument” then present your case to the IPCC. It is their equation.
Richard
Jim D says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:07 pm
“David Springer, you showed that the Arctic warmed by 1 degree in the last 30 years which is twice the global average. Is that the point you were making? This shows the sea-ice albedo feedback quite well to me.”
Oh I’m sorry Jim. Mibad. You’re quite right. I forgot the goalpost had been moved. The original prediction was called “polar amplification”. As you can see in the graph if you add the temperature anomaly from the north and south poles together then divide by 2 you get 0.5C of warming during the period which is the global average during the same period.
Ever cognizant of their errors a memo was sent out that “polar amplification” is now “arctic amplification”. I forgot about the memo. So sorry.
@JimD
Of course when you acknowledge the fact that GHGs have no significant warming effect over the oceans it makes perfect sense why there’s no warming in the Antarctic. The northern hemisphere has twice the land area of the southern hemisphere.
Nothing in
global warmingclimate changeclimate disruption andpolar amplificationArctic amplification makes sense except in light of the fact that GHGs do not warm the global ocean. Once you accept that fact all observations fall neatly in place.Theo Goodwin says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:52 pm
[snip – banned]
Excellent decision.
REPLY: He’d been banned before, this was the previously known troll “moderate republican” who thinks his opinion to be so important he had to sneak back in under another fake name and fake email address, along with a fake cache server connection. But he slipped up in his zeal, so off he goes again. – Anthony
That is overwhelming evidence. Some trolls have to be banned. Thank You.
Richard S Courtney (August 19, 2011 at 1:36 am):
Thanks for taking the time to comment. It sounds as though you’ve missed an element of my argument so I’ll paraphrase it in an attempt at communicating my ideas.
The linearity and functionality of the relation from the CO2 forcing to the equilibrium global surface temperature is a precept of the argument that is made by L&C. As there are alternatives, the assertion of linearity and functionality might be false. However, as the equilibrium global surface temperature is not an observable, the relation is not falsifiable. As such, this relation lies outside science.
L&C cite the paper by Schwartz in support of the linearity and functionality but a check of the content of this paper reveals that Schwartz fails to reveal a scientific basis for the functionality and linearity of the relation. He explains that the basis for the claim to linearity and functionality is a convention.
As you point out, this finding has broad significance, for the IPCC represents that the relation is true. Much of the edifice of IPCC climatology is erected upon the flimsy foundation of a convention that might be false but cannot be empirically tested. In order for climatology to advance toward the status of a science, this portion of its foundation must be replaced with something else.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:24 pm\
Willis quotes:
‘Loosely summarizing: – The ECS value associated with a GCM is not derived from information content in the observed temperature (and heating) data; the GCM can be forced to match that data for any ECS value. The ECS is predetermined by the model builder and then forcing data is adjusted until the model is ‘not inconsistent with’ the temperature (and heating) data.’
Willis writes:
“In other words, the models are not calculating the ECS from the data. Instead, they are simply physical embodiments of the beliefs, claims, and prejudices of the model builders regarding the ECS.
Or to restate what I said … they can tell us nothing about the ECS, they only can tell us about the modelers.”
If Willis is correct about this matter, and I see no reason to doubt that he is, is this not a total game changer, a smoking gun, and a totally damning indictment of claims by “mainstream climate science” that their climate models are in some way scientific?
It is a travesty of scientific method to use a hypothesis or principle that has no confirming instances, no predictions that have been proved true through observation. For the purposes of scientific method, a hypothesis or principle that will have no confirming instances for a hundred years has no confirming instances. Thus, the GCMs should be presented as speculative, as embodying the scientist’s best hunches, but not as scientific.
Terry Oldberg:
Thankyou for your post at August 19, 2011 at 8:42 am that clarifies your point.
It seems we agree on your basic premise. However, I stand by my point that Lindzen & Choi are not at fault in this. They take the IPCC argument, insert the datum they have empirically derived into the IPCC’s equation and report what that indicates. And it indicates there is not a problem.
I agree with you that the IPCC argument is flawed, but I think that is a different issue which should be addressed to the IPCC and not Lindzen & Choi. Perhaps they should have stated that the IPCC argument is erroneous, but I ponder if they then could have obtained publication of their findings.
Anyway, that is my view. And I think our degree of agreement is greater than our degree of disagreement.
Richard
Theo Goodwin:
I agree that the AGW hypothesis falls outside of normal and proper science. And I think this can be shown in several ways without resort to erroneous claims.
At August 19, 2011 at 8:45 am you say;
“For the purposes of scientific method, a hypothesis or principle that will have no confirming instances for a hundred years has no confirming instances.”
Sorry, but no.
A hypothesis is not ‘scienctific’ if it cannot be falsified. So, for example, the hypotheses that “God exists” and “God does not exist” are both not scientific hypotheses because neither can be falsified. If a test to falsify either of these hypotheses could be devised then that hypothesis would become ‘scientific’.
But the time required for a possible falsification is not relevant to whether or not a hypothesis is falsifiable: think of Halley’s comet.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
August 19, 2011 at 10:25 am
I did not mean to raise the issue of falsifiability. All that is required for falsifiability is that the principle in question, ECS, be falsifiable in principle. This principle might meet that standard.
I am addressing the matter of practicing scientists who present their physical hypotheses in peer reviewed articles. I think it goes without saying that if a reviewer discovers a statement offered as a physical hypothesis and there is no confirming evidence for the statement, then the author will be asked to explain the matter and asked to present the statement as something other than a physical hypothesis. There are heuristic statements in science but they are labelled as such.
You write:
“I agree that the AGW hypothesis falls outside of normal and proper science. And I think this can be shown in several ways without resort to erroneous claims.”
Enlighten me regarding your views. Give me your case that ECS falls outside normal scientific practice.
Theo Goodwin:
In your post at August 19, 2011 at 11:57 am you correctly quote my saying;
““I agree that the AGW hypothesis falls outside of normal and proper science. And I think this can be shown in several ways without resort to erroneous claims.”
then say to me;
“Enlighten me regarding your views. Give me your case that ECS falls outside normal scientific practice.”
I said AGW (not ECS) falls outside of normal and proper science. It does for various reasons, but the basic reason is that AGW is a hypothesis which fails to refute the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is a basic scientific principle. It says a system is assumed to have not changed unless there is evidence that it has changed. No unprecedented behaviours of the climate system have been observed to have happened since the start of the industrial revolution. Hence, the null hypothesis applies: i.e. the only scientific hypothesis pertinent to AGW is that the climate system has not changed since the start of the industrial revolution.
Therefore, any consideration of AGW as though it exists falls outside of normal and proper science because such consideration rejects the null hypothesis when there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis.
One could argue that an attempt to determine ECS applies an assumption that AGW exists and, therefore, any attempt to determine ECS falls outside of normal and proper science.
I hope that is sufficient to “enlighten” you regarding my views on the matter.
Richard
HenryP says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Seems we think alike. Have put a link to your site here:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1369-post-9926.html#pid9926
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:44 pm
This, Willis, is probably the best summary of all your work to date, and I thank you for this summary. Especially since it is not so bound to an extreme reliance on mathematics, but instead makes observations based on the physical principles scientists should know about the climate to this point. Your idea of the climate as a complex, non-linear thermostat has always appealed to me, especially since I get quite lost, as a non-scientist, trying to understand the mathematical relationships of forcing and sensitivity.
henry@richard111
there is something else that you should look at if you get some time
If you make a print of my tables here,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
and really take some time to really study them you can easily figure it out for yourself
1) first the so-called ” global warming” is not global at all.
In the SH there is almost no warming. Clearly, you can see a big difference in the results between NH and SH?
But now, how can that be? We know from real science and experiments that the CO2 is distributed everywhere exactly the same. So, if the CO2 were to be blamed, should not the warming be the same everywhere in the world?
So, we conclude it never was the increase in GHG’s that caused any warming.
2) If you look in Argentina (where there was considerable de-forestation) you find severe cooling. If you look at Norway (where there is much increased forestry) you find warming.
3) the fact that SH has little landmass and that the NH has a lot of landmass is an another indicator that should give a clue.
4) we also know that there have been reports here on WUWT and also from the Helsinki university that there has been increased vegetation in the past decades, especially in the NH…..
…..Did you figure it out?
The extra warming (on top of that which is natural) is caused by …… more vegetation!!!
Now what are we going to do about the so-called “global warming” problem?
Let us call it something else shall we?
Part of that “problem” of the extra vegetation could be caused by the increase in carbon dioxide.
………the circle is complete
now what?
Professor Lindzen was recently asked by a colleague at MIT what he thought was the chance that AGW would cause catastrophic global warming. His answer was 1 in 5. His colleague then asked him if he would get on a plane that had a 1 in 5 chance of crashing. Professor Lindzen had no reply.
Jesse Fell,
Citation, please?
And while you’re searching for it, keep in mid that China, India, and a hundred smaller countries have absolutely zero intention of curbing their emissions while pursuing economic growth. There is nothing the U.S. could do to make any difference at all.
Meanwhile, we’ll be waiting for that verifiable citation.
Richard S Courtney says:
August 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“I hope that is sufficient to “enlighten” you regarding my views on the matter.”
It is. Thank You, Sir. I have no disagreement with your views.
Jesse Fell says:
August 21, 2011 at 2:44 am
“Professor Lindzen was recently asked by a colleague at MIT what he thought was the chance that AGW would cause catastrophic global warming. His answer was 1 in 5. His colleague then asked him if he would get on a plane that had a 1 in 5 chance of crashing. Professor Lindzen had no reply.”
What a stupid analogy! How about some of these?
Would you serve in an army that has a 1 in 5 chance of defeat?
Would you play on an athletic team that has a 1 in 5 chance of defeat?
And on “ad infinitum.” In other words, it all depends on the analogy selected. The plane is a poor analogy because we expect that ordinary maintenance would yield a 1 in 100,000 risk or better. Just change the analogy to any among an indefinitely large number of commonplace situations where the risk actually is 1 in 5 and the analogical argument against Lindzen is seen to be worthless. (Of course, I know that my point will be difficult for a Leftist Weenie to understand because each and every one of them believes that all valuable human beings like themselves are born with 1 in a 1,000,000 chance of catastrophe or much better. God knows you could not imagine serving in an army at war.)
Smokey,
The citation would be a friend of mine who knows Lindzen, and I prefer not to drag this friend into this discussion. I’m sure you could verify the quotation by sending email to Lindzen at MIT.
Although I’m not sure I’m persuaded by Lindzen’s views, I respect him too much to put words in his mouth. If I did, it was inadvertent..
Theo,
OK, let’s get rid of the plane analogies — all analogies, as a matter of fact. The question to put to anyone who thinks that there is a one in five chance that climate change will have catastrophic consequences for mankind is: can you live with that? Or do you think that the gravity of this less than even chance would justify taking action to avert it?
“The citation would be a friend of mine…”
This isn’t realclimate or climateprogress, so let’s just forget the hearsay, and stick to verifiable facts.
I hope that somebody as clever and intelligent as Smokey, has at some stage, like me, decided to stop smoking?
JF;
I have a response for the Professor:
“If my other choice was getting in a train that had a 99.9% chance of crashing (mitigation), then I’d run to the plane’s boarding ramp.”
Another very interesting paper and congratulations to them on persevering through the peer review process.
It prompted the thought that you could obtain crude climate sensitivity to changes in greenhouse gases by analysing the CO2 and temperature changes during the industrial period. For approximately the last 10 years there has been no change in surface temperature or ocean heat content this indicates that the Earth is in energy balance. But not equilibrium as this implies a steady state and as greenhouse gases are increasing the “warming” from these is probably being offset by less solar heating from a less active Sun.
If an unreasonable assumption is made, in order to maximise climate sensitivity, that the whole of the warming of 0.85 deg C over that last 160 years was caused exclusively by increasing CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm then you can calculate the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2.
As the greenhouse gas effect is proportional to the natural log of concentration.
Hence ln(390/280) = 0.33 and for doubling CO2 we have ln(560/280) = 0.69.
So Earth has already experienced effectively half the effect of doubling CO2 levels. Therefore increasing CO2 levels to double pre industrial levels would only cause temperatures to increase by another 0.85 OC.
If you assume that at least half of the temperature increase over last 150 years has natural causes e.g. solar activity, then the expected temperature rise becomes 0.4 OC!
If you perform a similar calculation over the last 30 years again assuming that all temperature changes are CO2 related you would increase global temperatures by another 0.8 OC
This back of an envelope calculation appears to support Dr. Lindzen’s paper.
Henry@RichardBaldwin
The problem is that the warming caused by the CO2 is not due to a greenhouse effect;
in fact most “climate” scientists I came accross don’t even know how the GHG effect works.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
But they can “calculate” its warming effect, just like you, somehow.
But that is besides the point here.
look again carefully at my tables quoted below and if you really take some time to study them you can easily figure it all out for yourself:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
1) first the so-called ” global warming” is not global at all.
In the SH there is almost no warming. Clearly, you can see a big difference in the results between NH and SH? But now, how can that be? We know from real science and experiments that the CO2 is distributed everywhere exactly the same. So, if increases CO2 were to be blamed directly due it causing an increased gfreenhouse effect, should not the warming be the same everywhere in the world? So, we conclude (again) it never was the increase in GHG’s that caused any warming.
2) If you look in Argentina (where there was considerable de-forestation) you find severe cooling. If you look at Norway (where there is much increased forestry) you find warming.
3) the fact that SH has little landmass and that the NH has a lot of landmass is an another indicator that should give a clue.
4) we also know that there have been reports, e.g. from the Helsinki university that there has been increased vegetation in the past decades, especially in the NH…..
look here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
…..Did you figure it out?
Some additional extra warming (that which some scientists have identified as being on top of that which is natural) is caused by …… more vegetation!!!
Now we sit with one problem: Part of that “problem” of the extra vegetation is caused by people wanting more trees and forests and gardens and the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts as a fertilizer and accelerator for growth..………
So it seems the CO2 is only indirectly responsible for some of extra warming –