This press release was provided by Sandia National Labs:
In an effort to shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate, Sandia National Laboratories has invited experts from a wide variety of perspectives to present their views in the Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.
Predictions by climate models are flawed, says invited speaker at Sandia
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.
“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said. “Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change.
Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.
For major climates of the past, other factors were more important than carbon dioxide. Orbital variations have been shown to quantitatively account for the cycles of glaciations of the past 700,000 years, he said, and the elimination of the arctic inversion, when the polar caps were ice-free, “is likely to have been more important than CO2 for the warm episode during the Eocene 50 million years ago.”
There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”
Lindzen’s views run counter to those of almost all major professional societies. For example, the American Physical Society statement of Nov. 18, 2007, read, “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” But he doesn’t feel they are necessarily right. “Why did the American Physical Society take a position?” he asked his audience. “Why did they find it compelling? They never answered.”
Speaking methodically with flashes of humor — “I always feel that when the conversation turns to weather, people are bored.” — he said a basic problem with current computer climate models that show disastrous increases in temperature is that relatively small increases in atmospheric gases lead to large changes in temperatures in the models.
But, he said, “predictions based on high (climate) sensitivity ran well ahead of observations.”
Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
He disparaged proving the worth of models by applying their criteria to the prediction of past climatic events, saying, “The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance.”
Modelers, he said, merely have used aerosols as a kind of fudge factor to make their models come out right. (Aerosols are tiny particles that reflect sunlight. They are put in the air by industrial or volcanic processes and are considered a possible cause of temperature change at Earth’s surface.)
Then there is the practical question of what can be done about temperature increases even if they are occurring, he said. “China, India, Korea are not going to go along with IPCC recommendations, so … the only countries punished will be those who go along with the recommendations.”
He discounted mainstream opinion that climate change could hurt national security, saying that “historically there is little evidence of natural disasters leading to war, but economic conditions have proven much more serious. Almost all proposed mitigation policies lead to reduced energy availability and higher energy costs. All studies of human benefit and national security perspectives show that increased energy is important.”
He showed a graph that demonstrated that more energy consumption leads to higher literacy rate, lower infant mortality and a lower number of children per woman.
Given that proposed policies are unlikely to significantly influence climate and that lower energy availability could be considered a significant threat to national security, to continue with a mitigation policy that reduces available energy “would, at the least, appear to be irresponsible,” he argued.
Responding to audience questions about rising temperatures, he said a 0.8 of a degree C change in temperature in 150 years is a small change. Questioned about five-, seven-, and 17-year averages that seem to show that Earth’s surface temperature is rising, he said temperatures are always fluctuating by tenths of a degree.
As for the future, “Uncertainty plays a huge role in this issue,” Lindzen said. “It’s not that we expect disaster, it’s that the uncertainty is said to offer the possibility of disaster: implausible, but high consequence. Somewhere it has to be like the possible asteroid impact: Live with it.”
To a sympathetic questioner who said, “You are like a voice crying in the wilderness. It must be hard to get published,” Lindzen said, adding that billions of dollars go into funding climate studies. “The reward for solving problems is that your funding gets cut. It’s not a good incentive structure.”
Asked whether the prudent approach to possible climate change would be to prepare a gradated series of responses, much as insurance companies do when they insure cars or houses, Lindzen did not shift from his position that no actions are needed until more data is gathered.
When another Sandia employee pointed out the large number of models by researchers around the globe that suggest increases in world temperature, Lindzen said he doubted the models were independently derived but rather might produce common results because of their common origins.
The Climate Security lecture series is funded by Sandia’s Energy, Climate and Infrastructure Security division. Rob Leland is director of Sandia’s Climate Security Program.
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore, Calif., Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies and economic competitiveness.
h/t to Marc Marano
For some reason, this post just made me happy.
The tree rings lie? You cannot trust a Yamal? That is blasphemy. These trees are the original Ten Disciples of Mann, upon whose rings the Church of Warmanism is founded, and through them spreading the Gospel of Leftist-lib, enviro-wackpot anti-humanism. Through the power of the Spirit Gum of the Ten Yamal, there is no Medieval Warm Period and no Little Ice Age and all Twentieth Century Warming is vanquished before the time of the magic blade of the sacred `hockey stick’ that shall inexorably point toward Heaven’s Gate and the path to salvation for all believers on the dark side of Comet Hale-Bopp, after the global warming Armageddon.
“The reward for solving problems is that your funding gets cut. It’s not a good incentive structure.”
Nor does it make a contribution to national security or the intent of taxation.
“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.
Lindzen keeps making the same set of bad arguments over and over (http://tinyurl.com/bqymz6d), and they continue to be unsupportable.
Of course the climate models are flawed.
1. The assumption that the Earth radiates as a black body in a vacuum is bunkum. Any process engineer who see this says ‘How can these idiots be so stoopid?’.
2. The imaginary ‘back radiation’ used to claim (1) minus the imaginary 238.5 W/m^2 DOWN IR at TOA apparently gives a 5 fold increase of IR absorbed in the lower atmosphere. This is offset by exaggerated cloud albedo. The result is the imaginary positive feedback by an artificial increase of evaporation over the model’s sunlit oceanc.
3.There can be no CO2-AGW because CO2 self-absorbs by ~200 ppm. Through a subtle bit of physics this switches off that band’s emission at the Earth’s surface. The same goes for all other major GHGs. The GHE is because the IR and convection are inhibited so temperature rises to overcome the extra impedance. The GHE is a fixed level on a water planet.
4. The IPCC’s claim that denuded IR in bands at TOA proves GHG absorption is wrong.
I’ve always enjoyed reading or listening to people who express detailed understandings AND common sense like Richard Lindzen.
Dr Lindzen is indeed a “voice in the wilderness”. Go get ’em Doc. The truth MUST prevail.
Almost every sentence is structure to as if to say “Can you believe this guy? How dare he have a different opinion!”
Also:
“mainstream opinion that climate change could hurt national security”
Mainstream? Among who? I hate to sound like a libertarian or liberal nutjob, but those in the Defense Department etc. pushing this nonsense, long debunked theory are simply not credible and probably advance it to enhance their funding. Is this mainstream among people who have actually examined the issue, rather than among armchair generals at the Pentagon telling us what they feel could happen? No way!
The Doom & Gloomers Disastrous Prediction Record
What gets me about these Prophets of Doom is their never ending and obviously false predictions of disaster. And yes, ALL their flawed / faulty / idiotic computer models have failed. And ALL their doomsday pronouncements have not come true. These predictions are laughable in their absurdity. Yet these clowns continue doing the same thing, virtually the same threadbare predictions of unmitigated disaster, year after year, decade after decade. A seriously broken record.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” -H. L. Mencken
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
“by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe [will happen] which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” — Mustafa Tolba (1982), former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown (1989), ex UNEP Director
OT, but related. Joe D’Aleo’s post at IceCap on Perspective on the 2012 heat and drought is worth a post here, and a pdf. Surprise: Climatology, not CO2, explains the drought.
KR says: “What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet …. so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.”
KR, you are displaying colossal ignorance here. What part of the equivalent of don’t you understand? What part of almost?
According to:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
The combined greenhouse gas forcing since 1750 in 2010 was 2.81 W/m^2 which is the equivalent of about 76% of a doubling of CO2. It’s even higher, now, so yes, we’ve had most of the forcing that would come from a doubling of CO2 already.
“Climate Security Program” says it all for me. The absolute arrogance of any person or group who thinks they can do anything about a changing climate other than adapt or move is beyond belief. Hats off to Dr. Lindzen for going into what was an apparent lion’s den and giving his presentation. With luck, Michael Mann will carry out his threat to sue Mark Steyn and National Review and they both will fight. If the suit gets beyond the discovery process, the so-called consensus on AGW will certainly begin to crumble and Dr Lindzen and all the other “skeptics” will be vindicated.
It feels like bias when it’s supposed to be a revelation that these models are wrong. They couldn’t possibly be starting with a bias that they are right when they know that they are only models? That would not be an unintentional bias.
KR
It is a logrithmic scale you dolt. The first 50% results in ~80% of the change. Go back to your high school trig book unitl you learn enough to post. 400/280 =1.42, so we have seem most (more than 60%) of the proposed change from a doubling. I say proposed because observations do not support the 1.2C per doubling of CO2 concentration. Remember, if the outputs from the models don’t fit observations, go back and re-analyze and change “THE MODEL”!
Bill
KR read the statement again “in forcing” the forcing effect of CO2 is logarithmic not linnear – you knew that right?
Nick in vancouver says:
July 25, 2012 at 9:24 am
KR read the statement again “in forcing” the forcing effect of CO2 is logarithmic not linnear – you knew that right?
>>>>>>>>>
Of course he knew it. He was hoping no one else did.
KR said:”“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.
Lindzen keeps making the same set of bad arguments over and over (http://tinyurl.com/bqymz6d), and they continue to be unsupportable.”
*************************************************************************************************************************
That or you’re confused
Lindzen did not state what you think he did. he talked about the equivalent of doubling CO2 in *radiative forcing*, which includes things other than CO2, such as methane..
thisisnotgoodtogo: ‘He talked about the equivalent of doubling CO2 in *radiative forcing*, which includes things other than CO2, such as methane.’
GHGs like Methane below the self-absorption limit will behave as the IPCC imagines, until they get to self-absorption. Then the IR from the Earth’s surface in its IR bands will be switched off!.
In addition to the funding aspect, the Defense Department and the military branches in this country are now very politically oriented. That is, they will do and say what they believe the politicians want. The entire government is infested with careerists, all to the detriment of the public.
Lindzen’s approach is good…..each month, more research is
coming out and will show an over-inflated CO2-role…… patience,
a bit more time, in short, AGW will be over+out….
JS
What “climate change” do believers think they are seeing? I think that they see weather change and think it is climate change. The nighly national news routinely reports that odd weather is the result of “climate change” because doomsday sells lots of press. There is a strong echo-chamber feedback loop going on. Where is all this going? Time will tell.
God bless Lindzen, Moncton, and a host of enablers and disseminators like Watts et al. We just might have a chance to defeat this monster called The AGW Narrative. Never give up!
sparticusisfree said
” thisisnotgoodtogo: ‘He talked about the equivalent of doubling CO2 in *radiative forcing*, which includes things other than CO2, such as methane.’
GHGs like Methane below the self-absorption limit will behave as the IPCC imagines, until they get to self-absorption. Then the IR from the Earth’s surface in its IR bands will be switched off! ”
Point being made is that Lindzen was not saying CO2 had doubled
KR on July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.
I assume you’ve heard of parentheses: They’re those little roundy thingys that appear at the beginning and end of a statement within a sentencey thing. ‘The equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing)’ means something a little bit different, eh?
“What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.”
To amplify Nick in vancouver, the theoretical impact of CO2 decays exponentially. Take a look at this post. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
So Lindzen’s point is that the predicted impact of the realized 110 ppm increase of CO2 has not occurred.
“Responding to audience questions about rising temperatures, he said a 0.8 of a degree C change in temperature in 150 years is a small change.”
Especially since the actual temperature rise may only be half of that or less, due to data homogenization errors, and other warm bias factors.
For those arguing “equivalent forcings”, if you are going to look at all of the forcings (a good idea!), then you should do so: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-5.html and http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ list them. Total forcings since 1750, including methane, ozone, halocarbons, CO2, albedo, aerosols, solar change, etc, add up to a total of 1.6 W/m^2, [0.6 to 2.4]. A doubling of CO2 would provide a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. That’s a grand total of 43% the forcing of a CO2 doubling, meaning Lindzen’s statement is, again, nonsense.
And no, you cannot just ignore aerosols – Lindzen always seems to claim that since there is uncertainty in aerosol forcing (best estimate -1.3 W/m^2, full range of -0.4 to -2.7) he can assume it is _zero_. Nonsense again – the best estimate in the presence of uncertainty is -1.3, and zero isn’t even in the 2-sigma uncertainty range. Lindzen’s claim of zero aerosol forcing is at best wishful thinking.
Again – we’re nowhere near a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing change since pre-industrial levels, which is the expected forcing from a doubling of CO2. And Lindzens claim is unsupportable. http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7
I love Lindzen. Cuts right through all the post modern crap. A few more years and he will be able to say ‘told you so’ without question.
And KR’s comment is so typical of those who promote this alarmist nonsense…what a doofus.
Anyway….off topic story coming up.
I was chuckling to myself the other night watching an episode of Coast (a nice documentary series from the BBC of all people, shown in the UK – it travels around the coast doing little snippits of history/geography etc relevant to the coastline they are visiting).
Anyway….the other night they were at Harlech Castle, built by Edward the something to keep the revolting Welsh under check (I’m allowed…family is half Welsh…).
Thing is….the Beebs historian was explaining how very diff the castle was when it was built (circa 12-1300 AD I think?) as it was built on the sea front, with a docking area etc…that was one of its strengths, it was protected on one side by the sea.
Now of course its at least half a mile inland, the sea having fallen away in the years since. In fact a map was shown circa 16th Century showing the sea right by the castle. Ok…I don’t know to what extent land lifting/tilting of the UK has played in that, but as Anthony says, I could hear Joe Romms head exploding…
Tony B might like to follow up on this?
Dr. Lindzen, very well said! MIT, Meteorology,not bad credentials, to say the least. Hopefully some of the lesser minds will listen to you. But don’t hold your breath.
From the tone of the reported questions, and the specific mention of “a sympathetic questioner,” it appears the audience at Sandia was mostly disbelieving of Lindzen’s message.
Sandia has four main Missions, one of which is Energy, Climate, & Infrastructure Security. Among the four subdivisions of E, C & IS is Climate Security. The Climate Security program is described as, “The Climate Security program works to understand and prepare the nation for the national security implications of climate change.”
So, Lindzen’s message undermines a Mission program at Sandia Labs. Most of the scientists and engineers in a Climate Security program would necessarily start with the assumption that so-called climate change is a national security issue. Otherwise, why work in the program? If climate were not a security threat, then the work would be pointless.
So, one can see why Lindzen’s message would not be welcome at Sandia. It contradicts their foundational views, and his views in the longer term threaten to defund their program.
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
*************************************
Talk about bad, repeated, unsupportable arguments…..
The comparison page you linked is laughable and repeats dummy statements such as the ones below for a variety of arguments. Clicking the statements reveals more modeled ‘evidence’ or simple redirection.
“A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.”
“Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.”
“This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet’s thermal inertia.”
This for example:
“The skeptic argument…
Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
‘Phil Jones said that for the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.’ (Daily Mail)
What the science says…
When you read Phil Jones’ actual words, you see he’s saying there is a warming trend but it’s not statistically significant. He’s not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He’s discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.”
Let’s even include KR’s comment from the section below that article:
“KR at 10:55 AM on 3 January, 2011
@15PacksADay – So choosing to ask about a 15 year period (when just about everyone in climate science agrees that 25-30 is the minimum to evaluate a significant trend), the largest period in that time frame that did not meet the 95% significance threshold – is that good journalism? Or is that a trick question intended to advance a statistically false viewpoint?
I do wish Jones had answered that question a bit differently – but he answered it correctly given the data. Positive, but not at the 95% significance level.”
What is the point of all this redirection? No one is saying that because it wasn’t “statistically significant” it didn’t happen. No one is playing “gotcha” games and trying to trick you into saying something incriminating. If you say “He answered it honestly, I just wish he had answered it differently”, I have to wonder about your motives and your honest desire to seek truth versus misdirection, obfuscation, and intent to mislead the public.
And as for the second question quoted in the article:
“BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”
More redirection and an unwillingness to even answer the question. If we wanted to know what the IPCC said we would go read the report. We want to know what you think, that’s why we’re asking you. I’m tired of all these loose statements from people unwilling to own their arguments, and discuss what THEY KNOW – not parrot someone or something else.
These “scientists” continually duck open debate, redirect to other sources (usually circular to boost each other’s ‘expert’ status), and reference the same flawed and disproved materials over and over.
In short, they are (as you are, KR) repeating bad, unsupported arguments.
When you are asked a question, answer personally, and honestly. Stop giving cop-out answers, you sound like criminals repeating statements fed to you by your lawyers to look good in the press.
And that is all a prelude to the real issue these questions bring up. If we had warming, and it wasn’t significant, and you still argue that it was mostly caused by humans, there is only one real conclusion to draw. There is something else muting the human caused warming effect – such a thing would have to be MORE POWERFUL than the human caused warming effect to be able to do so. And it happens for many years on end, while CO2 rises at a steady rate.
You are admitting there is something MORE POWERFUL than man-made CO2 emission driven warming. Something that can override it. CO2 is not the primary driver. There is something bigger. Perhaps a confluence of things, it makes no difference. That’s about half of the whole skeptic argument, right there. That there are natural influences on our climate that surpass human influences. And that current conditions are not outside natural variability in recent or historic or prehistoric times.
So it’s time to lay off all the ridiculous carbon obsession, and the enormous wastes of time and money that could be spent, for example, on truly humanitarian efforts (which is how “green” is sold to us – save the world or feel guilty destroying it).
KR on July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.
So Lindzen is including CO2, Methane, etc… to get almost an equivalent to doubling of CO2 forcing. The english isn’t that difficult to understand.
mikef2 says:
July 25, 2012 at 10:41 am
I love Lindzen. Cuts right through all the post modern crap.
******************************************************************************
The pervasive post modernism we see from “scientists” today is sickening. The whole premise of science is undermined by it – from the scientific method, to the idea that results must be repeatable, even the principle of falsification lies outside of it.
“””””……KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense……”””””
Well those who utter nonsense would surely know utter nonsense when they utter it themselves.
Besides CO2 “forcing”, there is CH4 “forcing” and Ozone “forcing” and black carbon “forcing” etc etc etc, and I could easily be convinced that collectively they could yield as much “forcing” as would a CO2 doubling. So I don’t see any discrepancy between what Professor Lindzen said, and any known facts.
I think KR is KO’d.
But not being a believer in either “forcing” (not even mentioned in my very modern handbook of Physics) or of CO2 doubling; (1ppm CO2 –> 2ppm CO2 == 280 ppm CO2 –> 560 ppm CO2 ) I don’t pay much attention to the latest and greatest proxy values for this and that.
I’m still trying to get my arms around Kevin Trenberth’s value for the incident areal density of incoming solar power. How does 1362 Watts per square meter of NASA measured TSI get attenuated to 341 W/m^2.
And don’t give me that “average” BS, or explain to me that 4pi R^2 is exactly four times pi R^2, I happen to have a degree, with two majors in mathematics, so I know geometry. I’m also an accomplished gramophone performer, so I do understand “power”, ( have a degree in RadioPhysics too) and there is no such thing as “average” power nor “RMS” power either. Power is an instantaneous rate of supply/use/transport/whatever of ENERGY, or doing work, if you prefer; for those of us who actually do work.
So I haven’t played my stereo in over a month. Should I sue the manufacturer of my Amp (Yamaha) because the average power has now dropped well below their advertising claims; maybe orders of magnitude lower.
It is well known that the total black body radiation for a temperature of 288 K, which is the claimed mean surface Temperature of the earth, is around 390 W/m^2. Purely by sheer accident, this is also the value that Trenberth et al claim for the radiant emission from the earth surface; which of course is NOT a black body anyway, so the correspondence is quite accidental and nothing can be taken from that, in the way of theories etc. I presume that Kevin, or etal actually measured that 390 W/m^2 from the earth surface.
So 341 W/m^2, which is Trenberth’s value for solar insolation, would not even raise the earth’s Temperature to 288 K, which it allegedly is; only about 278.5K.
So how are you going to get desert surface Temperatures maybe as high as 330 K, with only 341 W/m^2 incoming. For that matter, how are you going to get a surface Temperature of around 183K at Vostok, with 341 W/m^2 beating on the ground all the time.
As I have said sever al times already, if you drop a 20 Kton bomb some place, maybe every 25 years or so; on average, the damage isn’t going to be too bad.
KR-you are now moving the goal posts. Previously you claimed that since we hadn’t seen close to a doubling of CO2, Lindzen’s statement was wrong. You now wish to claim that, since the actual statement does not include aerosol forcing, it is wrong. Your previous criticism of Lindzen is, you must admit, totally wrong, right?
As for looking at the IPCC estimate of total (known) forcings, and being unable to ignore aerosol forcings, what exactly is the basis for the IPCC’s “best estimate”? How do they know what aerosol loading there was in 1750? How do we know what forcing effect pollutants had back then Because we can know about the greenhouse gases, but really, the numbers for aerosols are just whatever is necessary to make the models work. But the most unreasonable assumption of the IPCC is that while those forcings canceled warming in the twentieth century, they will suddenly cease to be important in the next. It’s pretty ridiculous on it’s face.
Thinking about Meteorology Professor Lindzen, of MI, got me thinking; I wonder, presuming he HAS a PhD,whether he has a PhD in “CLIMATE SCIENCE”
We are constantly being badgered with the claims, that 97% of all “climate scientists” believe in catastrophic man made global warming climate change, also that we mere lay folks, without the necessary academic credentials, are incompetent to understand “climate science.”
So Dr Laura has a PhD, and she doesn’t know anything at all about “climate science” or even Physics for that matter. So I once thought about getting a PhD in Ice Cream Making, but I’m not sure that would qualify me to talk about climate science; well maybe with an asterisked restriction to the climate science of Greenland glaciology.
So apparently to be a credible expert on “climate science”, you need to have a PhD in “climate science”.
So now among the very famous and well known “climate science “experts” “, which ones, actually have a PhD in “climate Science”, rather than some other non climate science discipline ??
What are the best schools offering well respected PhDs in “climate science” ?
Lindzen’s appearance at SandiaLabs was arguably a counter-balance to the May 10 appearance of NCAR’s Warren M. Washington. The description of his visit is seen in an article of Sandia Labs’ newsletter – available as a PDF download at the newsletter homepage. See pg 4 here: http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/ln06-01-12/labnews06-01-12.pdf
The speaker was described in the following manner in the first paragraph: ” Global warming is unequivocal in its advance and will lead to more record-setting temperatures, said plain-spoken Warren M. Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research”.
A little more disturbing a bit farther into the story was this: ” With a nod to climate-change skeptics, he specifically cited noted University of California, Berkeley professor Richard Muller as once skeptical of the general scientific belief that we’ve warmed the planet by almost a degree C from 1880 to 2010 in land temperature average. …… In several instances, Washington challenged climate-change skepticism without personifying those who might hold those opinions. … ”
Worst of all, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan’s old talking point talking points crept into Mr Washington’s remarks: “We’re faced by a lot of people whose business interests are affected by climate change mitigation. [Washington] found the situation similar to the way, 20 years ago, people said that smoking does not cause cancer, even though the scientific evidence shows otherwise”.
Congrats goes to Sandia Labs’ Rob Leland, the organizer of the talks, for placing balance in the series with at least the presence of Dr Lindzen.
“Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic,”
###
This is to tell everyone that he can be safely dismissed and that they do not need to read any more.
This is NOT an accident. Everything must be molded in order to support the noble cause while appearing to be neutral; candy coated cyanide!
When is the last time you saw a press release that identified any member of the team by anything but “Climate Scientist”, as apposed to something like “global warming alarmist”.
KR is right, we’re less than 80% of the way to a CO2-equivalent doubling if you only consider GHGs, and under 50% of the way if you include all forcings. On top of that, Lindzen ignores the thermal inertia of the climate system – even if we had the doubled CO2-equivalent forcing, it would take decades to realize all of the associated global warming. Every climate scientist knows this, even Lindzen.
[SNIP: Dana, you do realize that Dr. Mann has been filing law suits left and right for language exactly like this, right? Publish this on your own site. -REP]
KR July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet
Quite right KR! This assertion requires clarification. What is most disappointing is that a lot of ‘sceptics’ here decide that this this is something to do with the logarithmic effect of CO2 – something they read somewhere maybe – It isn’t!!!! Unfortunately, these misinformed sceptics think that implying that KR is some sort of idiot will convince people that it is.
Now, make no mistake, Richard Lindzen is my hero, but I find that every time I enter this blog I end up attacking sceptics, because some of their comments here are so …… (words fail)
The question KR raises deserves a cogent answer. If you don’t know what it is – please shut up!
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am
“We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
What a _curious_ statement. CO2 is at 390 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial values, a doubling would be 560 ppm. That hasn’t happened yet (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7), so his claim is (IMO) utter nonsense.
Now read the statement carefully!
timetochooseagain – CO2 forcing since 1750 is ~1.66 W/m^2. Adding up all forcings (CO2, methane, CFC’s, aerosols, solar changes) as in the links in my last post shows a forcing delta of 1.6 W/m^2, almost the same value.
Doubling CO2 would show a forcing change of 3.7 W/m^2. Note the difference from 1.6 or 1.66 W/m^2. Lindzen is still incorrect.
As to historic records of aerosols, the best records come from snowcap/ice core measurements, wherein yearly aerosol particulate deposition can be _directly_ measured. The uncertainties (which while high, do not include _zero_ forcing as per Lindzen) are over the total effect from those aerosols, but we have an excellent idea of just how much aerosol levels have changed over time. As to those effects, recent volcanic activity (such as the Pinatubo eruption) have shown _just_ the effects that were predicted from such an eruption. And modeled. Before the eruption occurred. Which is in itself quite a validation of those models.
I certainly do not expect aerosols to suddenly drop to zero over the next century, and I’ve never heard anybody claim that (it’s a strawman argument). Air quality regulations (such as the 1970’s Clean Air act and similar legislation) will have an effect, particularly if China starts doing something about their aerosols, and any ongoing replacement of fossil fuel sources with renewables will also drop aerosol loading. Hence I do expect their forcing relative to energy consumption to drop over time.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
it seems there are natural 50 year global warming and global cooling cycles
“That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.
=====
And this is why the models will always be wrong and their projections will be meaningless. The focus on CO2 is motivated by politics not science. Science takes a backseat to money, politics and power.
And if these activists really cared about CO2 wouldn’t they be boycotting products from China, India, the US, Canada and all the other countries that are not part of the Kyoto Protocol and are destroying the planet?
A voice of sanity.
How on earth did science become such a political issue ? Maneuvering has already started as fear grows of those eggs arriving on faces. Watch now how model predictions of future temperatures have now subtly started to fall. No longer do we hear of 6 degree warming by 2100 or of catastrophic “tipping points”.
Ahh… Sandia. Brings back fond memories. The organization is pretty top-notch.
I have worked with Sandia both at Albuquerque and Livermore (they were one of my contractors). Based on my discussions with individual Sandia managers and scientist; my guess is Dr. Lidzen’s remarks were likely very well received by the Albuquerque teams and fairly well received by the Livermore teams. Particularly among the teams involved in national security and environmental technologies. Skepticism runs pretty deep there.
I’ve never meet Rob Leland, director of Scandia’s Climate Security Program, so I don’t have a feel for his caliber or that of his team. I will give Rob credit for balancing the discussion by ensuring balanced perspective by inviting Dr Lindzen to speak.
Regards,
Kforestcat
I believe the professor is referring to Hansen’s original worst case scenario. Based on the modeled rise in temp output as a function of CO2, we should be close to the equivalent forcing he references, but we are not. Correct me if I am wrong, but that worst-case model depends on CO2 driven water vapor increase creating most of the greenhouse temperature effect, not actual CO2.
Joachim Seifert says:
July 25, 2012 at 9:58 am
Lindzen’s approach is good…..each month, more research is
coming out and will show an over-inflated CO2-role…… patience,
a bit more time, in short, AGW will be over+out….
___________________________
It may be too late. The Movers and Shakers WANT that carbon tax so we have the usually conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) co-host[ing] a hushed-up meeting with the liberal Climate Crisis Coalition (CCC) to discuss how to enact a carbon tax in a lame duck Congressional session either this fall or in the 113th Congress.
For my view of the KR “utter nonsense”, I would agree that KR is correct that Lindzen appears to be assuming (whether or not he has reason to do so) that the negative forcing from aerosols is much closer to 0 than the mainstream view. I would not agree that this assumption is “utter nonsense” regardless of whether or not it is not mainstream however.
Cheers, 🙂
From KR’s link “A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.”
Now I get it! The “missing heat” isn’t missing, it just missed the bus!
Gail,
How could either 2012 “lame duck” session (Republicans control House) or 2013 Congress do this without massive Republican defections? (Chance that Dems control House in 2013 is extremely low.)
Lindzen or Curry deserve a prominet role in Romney’s upcoming government.
Gunga Din:
>From KR’s link “A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.”
They want it both ways.
When we say “The why is it not getting warmer over the last 15 years, they say:
“The warming will not occur until it’s too late to stop it, 2-4 C over the next 100 years. The lack of warming today is lulling us to sleep!”
Then when a heat wave hits the USA this summer:
“Wait a minute, we meant to say the warming will occur immediately! Yes, that’s right … it’s already here. See, we told you so!”
HenryP says:
July 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
it seems there are natural 50 year global warming and global cooling cycles
________________________
Yes they seem to be linked to the ocean cycles.
AMO
PDO
PAPER: Persistent influence of the North Atlantic hydrography on central European winter temperature during the last 9000 years
ENSO vs water vapor levels
Global Temps and ENSO
Solar radiation at vs ocean depths
Heat Capacity of Oceans vs Atmosphere
Global Relative Humidity 1948 to 2004 This graph is very important because it blows the “Global Warming” crap right out of the water. As one commenter here at WUWT keeps saying the HEAT content of the atmosphere is dependent on the water content. In other words there is more heat energy in 25C air at 90% humidity than there is in 25C air with 5% humidity therefore using temperature to measure the HEAT content of the air is just plain bad science.
Another one of those little bits of info the Warmists leave out of the debate.
Excellent, Dr Lindzen! Let’s hope they listen.
Is it my imagination, or are some governments (and some of their organizations) showing signs of waking up? I wonder when the media will twig to that and start giving the people real scientific opinion and drop the consensus nonsense they’re so fond of.
Juan, we have a DNS routing problem here, or possibly a DDoS attack, unsure.
Big D in TX says:
July 25, 2012 at 10:44 am
…So it’s time to lay off all the ridiculous carbon obsession, and the enormous wastes of time and money that could be spent, for example, on truly humanitarian efforts (which is how “green” is sold to us – save the world or feel guilty destroying it).
*
Wow, Big D, to your whole post. I want you in my corner! 🙂
Repeated for truth!
Brian R Adams says:
July 25, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Gail,
How could either 2012 “lame duck” session (Republicans control House) or 2013 Congress do this without massive Republican defections? (Chance that Dems control House in 2013 is extremely low.)
_________________________
The same way that Richard Burr (R-NC), whose office told me he was dead set against the Food Safety Modernization Act could turn around and co-sponsor the darn bill after the 2010 election. MONEY and LIES. That is why it would be passed during a lame duck session in hopes voters would forget by the time the next vote comes around. That is why Obamacare is slated to go into effect AFTER the next election. Politicians are not dumb they just think we are. They are just slipping the stuff in one at a time.
I suggest you read Dr Evans Climate Coup the Politics on the ‘Regulating Class’ Democrats vs Republicans is a dog and pony show for the masses. As Evans points out it is actually the Regulating Class vs the Tax Payers. Once you can wrap your head around that idea politics becomes much clearer.
Tell me, just how many laws have politicians actually repealed? Just how many politicians have suggested the Federal Reserve Act should be repealed? How many want to get rid of or even rein in the EPA?
Pamela Gray says:
July 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I believe the professor is referring to Hansen’s original worst case scenario. Based on the modeled rise in temp output as a function of CO2, we should be close to the equivalent forcing he references, but we are not. Correct me if I am wrong, but that worst-case model depends on CO2 driven water vapor increase creating most of the greenhouse temperature effect, not actual CO2.
_________________________
Yes, and what is water vapor actually doing? FALLING!
Don’t know anything about that but I do notice some drag from 3rd party scripts again (Kissmetrics, Google analytics, etc) on page loads.
I can see a request for an HTTPS secure connection right before these scripts begin pulling in their specific resources. I would guess maybe 3 to 5 seconds extra time is added.
NOTE: I am NOT complaining, just reporting. The last time I saw this server side lag was around July 1 and I mentioned it in this thread, and some people suggested switching browsers, blocking scripts and whatever (incorrect answer! these are upstream issues!). Most likely there are server problems (hardware, software, routing) on upstream systems involved with sidebar content, ads and analytics that Anthony obviously has no power over.
Thanks, Dr. Lindzen!
See “Global Warming: How to approach the science”, at http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf (Richard S. Lindzen, 22nd February 2012).
See “Earth is never in equilibrium”, Richard S. Lindzen, Watts Up With That?, April 9 2010, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/lindzen-earth-is-never-in-equilibrium/
See “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”, at http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762 (Richard S. Lindzen, 29 Nov 2008).
See “Some remarks on global warming”, at http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/139rmg~1.pdf (Richard S. Lindzen, 1990. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 24, Pages 424-427).
See “Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously” (.pdf, 968 KB) at Publications by Lindzen, Richard, http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
It’s curious how KR changes his argument in response to criticism. Presumably he couldn’t address the criticism which is why he is now going off on other tangents. Wouldn’t it be less disingenuous to admit your error before presenting another point of view?
@KR & Dana:
Cornered? Just bring on more epicycles!
KR says: “As to historic records of aerosols, the best records come from snowcap/ice core measurements, wherein yearly aerosol particulate deposition can be _directly_ measured.”
Um, no, not at all. This is what is called “bullshit”. The reason one can use ice cores to determine the actual level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere there were in the past is that those gases disperse pretty evenly through the atmosphere. Particulates do not. We cannot know the time history, the geographic distribution of that history, and the kind of particulates involved. The ice cores can’t tell you what the aerosol forcing is. We don’t even know it’s present value. We certainly don’t know what it’s value was in 1750. The IPCC estimates are nothing more than the amounts necessary to make models work. They are not measured levels with effects calculated from physics like greenhouse gases.
“As to those effects, recent volcanic activity (such as the Pinatubo eruption) have shown _just_ the effects that were predicted from such an eruption. And modeled. Before the eruption occurred. Which is in itself quite a validation of those models.”
Now I see where some of your confusion is coming from. You don’t understand the difference between the aerosol forcing the IPCC uses to cancel most of the warming, and the volcanic ash that makes it into the stratosphere. Much of that does end up deposited at the ice caps, such that when we look in the ice cores, we can see major eruptions. But those are two different forcing effects. More over, you seem to think the claim of modelers to having modeled what a Pinatubo-like eruption would do-allegedly before hand, hadn’t heard that one before-and matched reality “exactly” is really good evidence that the models must be correct. But this is really just nonsense. In point of fact, one can relatively easily create a model, based on the volcanic aerosol forcing data (which is, again, different from the aerosols that are supposedly canceling the warming) that fits the observational data, and magnitude of the change will be about the same pretty much regardless of the model sensitivity (ie the eruption is consistent with very low sensitivity or very high sensitivity within measurement uncertainty) and therefore the Pinatubo eruption represents a very weak test of models. Not “quite a validation” at all.
“I certainly do not expect aerosols to suddenly drop to zero over the next century, and I’ve never heard anybody claim that (it’s a strawman argument). Air quality regulations (such as the 1970′s Clean Air act and similar legislation) will have an effect, particularly if China starts doing something about their aerosols, and any ongoing replacement of fossil fuel sources with renewables will also drop aerosol loading. Hence I do expect their forcing relative to energy consumption to drop over time.”
KR, I don’t recall saying you were saying what aerosols would do over the next century at all. But over the twentieth century modelers typically assume that aerosol forcings have increased in sync with greenhouse gases (because that is necessary to cancel the excessive warming) whereas over the next century the cancellation is assumed to cease (this is different from say “suddenly drop to zero over the next century” which is a strawman-strawman of your own construction, because you didn’t understand what I was saying). Your emissions scenario is interesting, although it’s different from the one I mentioned. You seem to assume that China will regulate their emissions of particulates, and also that people will adopt “renewables” with the later reducing particulate emissions but not, somehow, CO2 emissions. That’s a little strange. In the first place, the driver of emissions reductions in terms of particulates will not be legislation but growth, as has always been the case. Besides, the environmental records of Communist governments are abyssmal so I’m not sure why anyone would assume they would do something. Will reductions in Chinese air pollution necessarily eliminate the aerosol cancellation of warming, if it is really significant? It might, if China was the only country in the world! Emissions scenarios for CO2 in the future involve growth not just from China but also Africa and other economies that may be expected to join emergent economies in several decades. They will presumably start their economies producing particulates. The global forcing from particulates cannot realistically be presumed to go away slowly or otherwise any time soon. But every scenario of large future warming is dependent on that forcing at the very least decoupling, suddenly, from CO2 forcing etc.
Will Nitschke – “…curious how KR changes his argument in response to criticism”
I haven’t changed my argument, Will, just clarified it. Lindzen claimed a doubling worth of CO2 forcing (3.7 W/m^2) change (that hasn’t happened, either in pure CO2 forcing of 1.66 or in total forcings of 1.6 W/m^2). He claims aerosol uncertainties mean he can claim they have zero forcing, but zero just isn’t supportable (estimated -1.3, range -0.4 to -2.7).
[I am, incidentally, unaware of _any_ publications or research Lindzen has done regarding aerosols – he hasn’t presented any data, any evidence to support his claims in that regard: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html%5D
0.8C change with observed forcings since pre-industrial times supports (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7) a climate sensitivity of roughly 2.4C/doubling, minimum of 1.2C, maximum not well limited by that data – which is consistent with the IPCC estimate of 3C (2-4.5)/doubling. And which excludes Lindzens claims of <1C/doubling.
Lindzens claim of “we’’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing)” is, as I stated in my first post, just unsupportable.
timetochooseagain – WRT aerosols versus GHG’s, any shift away from coal or other heavily aerosol polluting energy will decrease the aerosol load, and aerosols have an atmospheric lifespan on the order of only 3-5 years. CO2, on the other hand, has an atmospheric concentration lifespan of centuries to millenia (Archer 2009, http://ctserver.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf), meaning that the ratios _will_ change as energy mix and pollution regulations do.
I will not, however, attempt to make any predictions as to the _rate_ of aerosol change – that’s dependent on political and economic decisions around the world, and I won’t claim _any_ skill in predicting either politics or economics.
As to aerosol records – we do indeed have a pretty good idea of the levels, both from snowcap sampling for pre-industrial times and in addition from our records of energy usage – burning any fossil fuel puts out a certain amount of aerosols. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=historic+aerosol+emission+estimates for multiple examples of that.
KR,
Your numbers once again bring to mind my paraphrase of Archimedes.
“Give me a large enough error bar on which to place my model and I can try to rule the World”.
Gail Combs says:
July 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Pamela Gray says:
July 25, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I believe the professor is referring to Hansen’s original worst case scenario. Based on the modeled rise in temp output as a function of CO2, we should be close to the equivalent forcing he references, but we are not. Correct me if I am wrong, but that worst-case model depends on CO2 driven water vapor increase creating most of the greenhouse temperature effect, not actual CO2.
_________________________
Yes, and what is water vapor actually doing? FALLING!
————————————————————————————————–
Humm???? Just like Temperature minus Mann made GW. A must post for any who are open about the T record
… http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/history-of-how-this-fraud-was-perpetrated/
Bill Yarber says:
July 25, 2012 at 9:21 am
It seems to me you know it’s a logarithmic response but you don’t understand logarithms. (Clearly you can’t spell them). I don’t know about your high shool, but I found out about logarithms in 8th grade algebra. Trig focused on angles, sines, tangents, and all that good stuff. Not many logs though.
Let me help you out. If the temperature gain is proportional to the log of the change in CO2, then 2X the CO2 means the pertinent number is log(2). It can be any base you like, but for here, let’s stick with base 10. Log(2) = 0.301. To see 50% of the effect, we need the antilog of 0.15, which is 1.414. (Of course, this is the square root of 2, a geometric progression would work just as well, but logarithms let us play with any ratio.)
So no, we haven’t seen “more than 60%” of the effect yet, we have seen very close to 50%.
BTW, a 50% increase – log(1.5) = 0.176. 0.176/0.301 = 0.585 or 58%. Hardly 80%. Please, please, please don’t spout off numbers you don’t really understand. If they’re important enough, someone else will do it for you. In the meantime, your advice “unitl [sic] you learn enough to post.” seems seems decent. I’d add “Count to 10 before replying. Among other things, it helps your spelling. Then ask if you know enough to not embarrass yourself.
When you read Phil Jones’ actual words, you see he’s saying there is a warming trend but it’s not statistically significant. He’s not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He’s discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.”
If it’s not statistically significant then we accept the Null Hypothesis. There has been no warming.
You are abusing the term ‘noise’. There is almost no noise in the satellite temperature data.
What you should say is that there is a large natural variability component in global temperature changes, and this natural variability is noise when looking for the GHG warming signal.
Of course, there is no evidence for this claim. It is Ad Hockery – a reason invented in the absence of evidence for why measurements do not conform to predictions.
KR, a 40 plus% increase in CO2, plus other GHGs,, plus the logarithmic affect of the first 1/2 of a doubling having more weight then the second 1/2, and discounting your cooling forcing, which Lindzen does, all combined makes his statement correct, and your dismisal true in your own mind only.
Hansen tries to save his bad projections by asserting the other GHGs. I guess this places you in a catch 22.
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 5:06 pm
> 0.8C change with observed forcings since pre-industrial times supports (http://tinyurl.com/bu2w5a7)
Why did you use a tinyurl? It’s not as though the target would break WordPress or anything, it just goes to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm . Are you embarrassed you read SkS or just trying to trick people here to boost SkS’s page view count?
Lindzen said he doubted the models were independently derived but rather might produce common results because of their common origins.
It doesn’t matter if the models share common origins (although many do). What is important is that they share common theories and assumptions.
Averaging the model outputs, as the IPCC and others do, is merely deriving a numerical value for what on average climate modellers believe. To claim this is science is ludicrous.
Philip Bradley – “If it’s not statistically significant then we accept the Null Hypothesis. There has been no warming.”
No, that’s not how statistical evidence works. We reject the null hypothesis if the tested hypothesis is more than 2 sigma from the null. In the case of the Phil Jones statement, 15 years of data given noise and natural variability was too short to reject the null hypothesis, as it was outside only 92%, not 95% of the variability of the data. That is not a resounding acclaim for the null hypothesis of no warming, but rather an indication of a trend with a strong but not statistically solid likelyhood of rejecting the null. The data certainly did not reject the hypothesis of the upward trend.
And that natural variation (ENSO, solar cycle, etc) and noise is why folks look for ~30 year time periods to evaluate trends.
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:46 am (Edit)
Thanks, KR. A doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m2 per the IPCC. And according to the IPCC FAR SPM, we’ve seen the following increases in forcing.
Forcing, W/m2
CO2 1.66
Methane etc 0.48
N20 0.16
Halocarbons 0.34
Ozone 0.35
Solar 0.12
These total 3.11 W/m2. Some are said to be offset by claimed negative forcings due to aerosols, but there is little observational data to back up that claim. Is 3.11 “almost the equivalent” of 3.7? I’d call that a bit of hyperbole, but not much.
In any case, your mistake was to misread Lindzen’s claim as being only about CO2 forcing …
w.
KR says: “I am, incidentally, unaware of _any_ publications or research Lindzen has done regarding aerosols”
Y.‑S. Choi, R. S. Lindzen, C.‑H. Ho, and J. Kim, 2010: Space observations of cold‑cloud phase change. Proc .Nat .Acad. Sci., 107, 11211-11216.
“In particular, current climate models generally overpredict current warming, and assume that the
excessive warming is cancelled by aerosols (31). As noted by Kiehl et al. (32), the adjustments are different for each model. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment (33), both the primary and secondary (via the effects of aerosols on clouds) are highly uncertain, but the IPCC expects each effect to act to cool. The present paper offers a
potentially important example of where the secondary effect is to warm, thus reducing the ability of aerosols to compensate for excessive warming in current models.”
Any?
“As to aerosol records – we do indeed have a pretty good idea of the levels, both from snowcap sampling for pre-industrial times and in addition from our records of energy usage – burning any fossil fuel puts out a certain amount of aerosols.”
No. Again, aerosols are not a well mixed gas, while the deposition in Antarctica can tell us about large volcanic eruptions, it does not tell us the aerosol loading that was present in distant locations. As for records from energy use, those cannot tell us how long particulates stayed in the air, or the form they took. The level of forcing is very sensitive to the form of both.
“I will not, however, attempt to make any predictions as to the _rate_ of aerosol change – that’s dependent on political and economic decisions around the world, and I won’t claim _any_ skill in predicting either politics or economics.”
It’s not really about what you claim. It’s about what people who do attempt to predict about the rate of aerosol change claim. But I am glad to here you now don’t. If it is not possible to predict political and economic decisions that would control this “crucial” factor, how can you claim to have any idea whatsoever about future climate? What can you possibly have to be so alarmed about? Oh, you can’t make the predictions, but others can, and you find their ridiculous predictions plausible base on your cursory analysis of the situation. Well, you’ll have to forgive me because I just find these projections completely, utterly stupid.
Willis Eschenbach – Only if you (like Lindzen) ignore the aerosol evidence, and assume against all the evidence that aerosols have zero effect.
1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 alone. 1.6 W/m^2 for all forcings combined. Nowhere near 3.7 W/m^2.
Gail Combs – good point. The Republicans and Democrats don’t represent the average Joe and Jane. Follow the money.
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm
To the best of my recollection, the 30 years goes back at least to the 1960s when climatology was about organizing records and determining averages. While the 11 year solar cycle was recognized, the PDO and AMO were not, so we really should be looking at 60 year periods to even out the effect of those. The most recent 3 decade period that is sometimes still used often exaggerates the effect of those cycles. Most notably, of course, is the satellite record that covers nearly the entire last warm phase of of the PDO.
If you have a reference that explains the origin of the “30 years,” I’d be happy to turn it into a post here.
timetochooseagain – Fair enough, the detailed distribution of aerosols has a significant influence on their effects. And that is incorporated into the rather large (although not encompassing “zero”) uncertainties in their forcings.
We do know how much aerosol pollution we have caused, and good estimates on the ‘hang time’ for different kinds of aerosols.
Again, though, you cannot assume that aerosol forcing is zero. And even if you did, Lindzen’s statement is nonsense, as without _any_ aerosol forcing (again, a nonsense claim) we would still be <80% of the way to a CO2 doubling. As it stands, with the best estimate for aerosols, we're at about 43%.
Uncertainties do not mean you can cherry-pick and assert an extreme value as ground truth. They mean you need to consider the range, as -0.3 W/m^2 forcing for aerosols is just as likely as -2.7 W/m^2. While -1.3 W/m^2 is the best estimate given the data we have…
Ric Werme – Why 30 years? That’s an _excellent_ question.
When looking at too short a time frame almost _any_ trend can be found by picking peaks/valleys, although they are not statistically significant (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47). It’s vital to have enough data that trends, up, down, or none, can be identified with some confidence against the noise and variation of the signal – that an apparent trend isn’t just chance.
Santer et al 2011 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml) found 17 years an absolute minimum for identifying a trend (of the currently observed level) with the noise level of the RSS satellite data. The World Meteorological Organization chose 30 years (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html), as 2/3 of one basic measure, the length of time for the standard deviation to stabilize (45 years, http://bartonpaullevenson.com/30Years.html). It’s not unreasonable, as 30 years is usually sufficient to determine trends with 2-sigma confidence against the null hypothesis of no trend whatsoever, and a more stringent 45 years (while a very solid estimate) is shorter than many economic changes that affect GHG forcings. Note that very small trends up or down would require longer periods to establish against the noise – but what we’re currently seeing (+0.16-0.17C/decade) can be easily and with statistical significance identified over 30 year periods – it’s big enough to stand out, to be much less than a 1/20 chance against noise and variation. If you account for ENSO, volcanic eruptions, and the 11 year solar cycle (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf), you can make a statistically significant estimate from 11-12 years of data, although that is dependent on a multiple linear regression. For the purposes of establishing trends against raw data a longer period is probably a good idea.
As to 60 year cycles – I would consider those possible, but definitely not plausible – there’s no theoretic mechanism for storing/blocking energy for that period of time, and because the forcings we do know about over the last few hundred years match the pattern of climate change quite well without them. Why reject mechanisms we have evidence for, in favor of unsupported patterns without evidence?
—
30 years for identifying trends in raw data holds up. 10-15 years do not.
Lindzen gets a lot of press because he’s a sceptic.
And props to him, he’s probably one of the world’s top 100 climate scientists.
But probably not one of the top 50.
Sceptics make up about 2 or 3 % of climate scientists. Let’s not exaggerate the opinion of one in one group by not reporting on the learned opinion of 100 in the other group.
Lindzen’s correct to question hindcasting as a method of proving climate models, as it has been shown that climate models are much more accurate at reproducing global mean surface temperature than they should be given the errors in the inputs. However “The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance” is not right. A climate model could quite conceivably incorrectly hindcast. That they don’t is evidence of some skill in the models.
Moreover, climate models run into the future also have good skill at reproducing global mean surface temperatures.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5499/2133/F1.medium.gif
Wombat says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Oh piffle. Not only does that try to separated out the natural and anthropomorphic components, it only starts in 1860.
Why does it correlate so poorly with the 2485 year record and prediction at http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/china/liu-2011-predictions-web.gif
Figure 5 Prediction of temperature trends on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau for the next 120 years. Blue line, initial series; orange line, calibration series, 464 BC – 834 AD; purple line, verification series, 835 – 1980 AD; red line, forecasting series, 1980 – 2134 AD.
Yeah, yeah, one is global, one is regional. I don’t think both will verify….
Much has appeared about Phil Jones’ quote about 15 years. There are actually two different quotes involving 15 years and which involve either Phil Jones or the Met office. The first was on February 13, 2010 where there was in fact an increase of 0.12/decade, but it was not significant at the 95% level. The second quote came at the beginning of this year where it was simply stated that there has been no warming for 15 years. Hadcrut3 has not been updated on WFT since March, but for the 15 year period from April 1997 to March 2012, the slope is actually slightly negative so there is no longer any need to invoke a significance level to the negative number.
See the graph below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/to:2012.25/trend
The green upward slope over 15 years is what Phil Jones talked about on February 13, 2010. The blue downward slope is the situation over the most recent 15 years that Hadcrut3 is on WFT.
Wombat says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Lindzen gets a lot of press because he’s a sceptic.
And props to him, he’s probably one of the world’s top 100 climate scientists.
But probably not one of the top 50.
Sceptics make up about 2 or 3 % of climate scientists. Let’s not exaggerate the opinion of one in one group by not reporting on the learned opinion of 100 in the other group.
========================
Links to your sources of info please.
Werner Brozek – “…for the 15 year period from April 1997 to March 2012, the slope is actually slightly negative so there is no longer any need to invoke a significance level to the negative number.”
Um, no. A statistically insignificant period, one wherein there is a fair chance of the apparent trend being an artifact of noise, _does not prove anything_.
15 years of raw data is just not sufficient to establish a linear trend in the presence of noise and variation. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 for examples of insignificant periods.
My dear Wombat, perhaps you should realise that because CO2 enters IR self-absorption mode by ~200 ppmV, there can be no CO2-AGW. This datum comes from metallurgy and has been tested experimentally for 60 years.
The climate models have 5 mistakes in physics, two so elementary a teenager should be embarrassed, two more subtle and the fifth the totally imaginary ‘back radiation’, a big mistake by meteorologists but they’re taught it so can’t be blamed.
To even remotely imagine that hind casting such a mistake-riddled scientific discipline magically correct matters is plain stoopid. These models are worse than useless because they mislead people. The programme needs to be restarted with the mistakes corrected.
1. ‘Back radiation’ does not exist – pyrgeometers do not measure it – you need two, back to back to get the true net radiative heat transfer.
2. The IR physics is totally wrong – you can’t get direct thermalisation because ithat’s quantum excluded.
3, The Earth cannot emit IR as a black body in a vacuum.
4. At TOA, DOWN emissivity = zero..
5. Sagan’s aerosol optical physics doesn’t include a second optical process so goes completely wrong for bimodal droplet distributions in clouds. Because it’s built into satellite data processing algorithms, none of these data are safe..
K.R.Says…”30 years for identifying trends in raw data holds up. 10-15 years do not.”
=====================================================
Stop it please, you are killing me. (-; (Hint..look for the 60 year peak to peak T swings)
Iceland… http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
U.S. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
World http://www.google.com/imgres?q=sixty+year+global+temperature+charts&um=1&hl=en&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4TSHB_en___US337&biw=1024&bih=522&tbm=isch&tbnid=JA0dGe29djSjnM:&imgrefurl=http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-open-thread-1/&docid=tBP4r33x3ybvaM&imgurl=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png&w=645&h=416&ei=–YQUJnkM8_ciQL3r4DgCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=105&vpy=205&dur=274&hovh=180&hovw=280&tx=112&ty=120&sig=117976538410540074921&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=214&start=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:75
Now genuis, match this to a PDO graph.
George E. Smith; says:
July 25, 2012 at 11:41 am
So now among the very famous and well known “climate science “experts”, which ones, actually have a PhD in “climate Science”, rather than some other non climate science discipline??
What are the best schools offering well respected PhDs in “climate science”?
If you’re a non-smoker, you’ve probably missed the “Close Cover Before Striking School of Climate Science” ads, but the back cover of my latest issue of Google-Fu Monthly has a nice full-pager: “Become a
Television Repair ProfessionalClimate Science Ph.D. at Home!Earn Big MoneyGet Government Grants While You Learn!”timetochooseagain says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:56 am
“mainstream opinion that climate change could hurt national security”
Mainstream? Among who? I hate to sound like a libertarian or liberal nutjob, but those in the Defense Department etc. pushing this nonsense, long debunked theory are simply not credible and probably advance it to enhance their funding.
more soylent green! nails that one (July 25, 2012 at 9:58 am) with “In addition to the funding aspect, the Defense Department and the military branches in this country are now very politically oriented. That is, they will do and say what they believe the politicians want. The entire government is infested with careerists, all to the detriment of the public.”
DoD’s primary concern hasn’t been defense since before the USSR imploded, it’s been about which branch can get the biggest slice of the budget. The USAF “owned” the terrestrial portion of the Arctic for half a century, and the Navy contented itself with finding polynyas for their boomers. CAGW projections of an ice-free Arctic opens a whole new area for mission-grab and the funding that goes with it.
The 30 years for climate is because the old log books were set up with ten years in a book, each page had the days of the month, for each of the ten years in a decade with a monthly summary at the end of each month with an yearly summary at the end of the year.
They ran double totals across the days to get monthly totals and averages, down the columns to get daily totals/averages. The standard library table was 3′ X 6′ and just enough room to open three books of archives, and the new entry book for the current decade. By dividing by three you get a lot of thirds which are easy to round up or down. Dividing by four leaves you with a lot of halves, just to messy.
It was not uncommon for the record takers to place bets in the side margins as to what the monthly averages would be (with initials and amount of the bets). I personally think it was the awkwardness of trying to have more than three past record books open at the same time, that set the standard for 30 years is climate.
eyesonu says:
July 25, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Wombat says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Lindzen gets a lot of press because he’s a sceptic.
And props to him, he’s probably one of the world’s top 100 climate scientists.
But probably not one of the top 50.
Sceptics make up about 2 or 3 % of climate scientists. Let’s not exaggerate the opinion of one in one group by not reporting on the learned opinion of 100 in the other group.
========================
Links to your sources of info please.
____
Top Climate Scientists:
Lindzen is 399th on this list of scientists ordered by number of citations to their papers that are on the subject of climate change:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html
So I might be wrong about him being in the top 100. He is in the top 100 by this list ordered by number of cites of their fourth most cited paper, independent of the subject, but restricted to those who are fellows of a learned society:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/learned_society_fellows_table.html
So he might be in the top 100 high profile scientists that also do climate science.
For the 2-3% figure, google showed this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
Which is probably better than the one that I was aware of, which was Doran and Zimmerman:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Air quality regulations (such as the 1970′s Clean Air act and similar legislation) will have an effect, particularly if China starts doing something about their aerosols…
China will do whatever its pols decide is in China’s best long-term interest, and they have already decided that *increasing* the number of their coal-fired plants is in China’s best long-term interest.
Wombat says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Sceptics make up about 2 or 3 % of climate scientists. Let’s not exaggerate the opinion of one in one group by not reporting on the learned opinion of 100 in the other group.
Aside from the arithmatic error, I hope you’re not basing your statement on that thoroughly-debunked “97% of climate scientists” meme.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Thanks, KR. I don’t assume anything about aerosols, except that as the IPCC says, our level of scientific understanding (LOSU) of them is “Low”. Since “Low” is the lowest of the LOSU ratings given by the IPCC, that ain’t saying much …
Indeed, for the larger “indirect” aerosol effect, the IPCC says the 95% confidence interval, at 1.5 W/m2, is nearly as large as the claimed CO2 forcing … so if that’s what you are putting your faith in, the barely-understood indirect aerosol effect … well, good luck.
w.
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Absolutely not. The effects from Pinatubo were much, much smaller than predicted. See my analyses here on WUWT, here and here. You’ve been scammed, my friend, by people claiming that Pinatubo was _just_ like they predicted, when it wasn’t. See also the post “Volcanic Disruptions“. Among other things, after El Chichon, which was a huge eruption, temperatures increased … go figure.
So no, KR, the PlayStation™ climate models didn’t get the volcanoes right in the slightest.
w.
Willis Eschenbach:‘ the IPCC says the 95% confidence interval, at 1.5 W/m2, is nearly as large as the claimed CO2 forcing’
I don’t know if you realise it but the imaginary energy in the models [2009 Energy Budget:;333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ – 238.5 W/m^2 DOWN IR at TOA = 94.5 W.m^2] is 60 times the 1.6 W/m^2 presently-claimed aerosol cooling supposed exactly to offset CO2-AGW! To make the rest disappear involves doubled real low level cloud optical depth [see G L Stephens article on page 5 here: http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf ]
The aerosol optical physics in the models is wrong. NASA claims clouds with highest albedo are those with smallest droplets because of increased ‘surface reflection’: there is no such physics. In reality, high albedo is a large droplet effect as proved by thunderclouds etc.
The real net AIE is the opposite sign, However, this is forbidden knowledge because it competes with Hansenkoism.
It undermines the degree of certainty we can have in modelers who considered such a plateau unlikely. Who considered, BEFORE the fact, such noise to be less significant. It increases the likelihood that there’s something not yet understood that’s offsetting the supposed tight coupling of CO2 levels and the global temperature.
KR says:
“15 years of raw data is just not sufficient to establish a linear trend in the presence of noise and variation.”
===========================
The linear trend for 30 years is 1.3C per century (RSS), i.e., a non problem, and the last half of that indicates the warming rate has decreased. Is 30 years enough?
See the recent WUWT threads on those surveys, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Wombat says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Moreover, climate models run into the future also have good skill at reproducing global mean surface temperatures.
The observational data on graph you linked to ends in 2000 and the projection for the period 2000 through 2012 shows a downward spike and then a continuing upward trend.
The actual observations for that same period show a flattening followed by a downward trend —
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from
— which is not exactly evidence of “good skill”…
…unless, of course, there is some brand-new definition of “good” that I’m unaware of…
Wombat says:
July 26, 2012 at 12:54 am
For the 2-3% figure, google showed this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
From the .pdf: “We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC.
My bolding.
They picked 1,372 scientists who had previously stated that they agreed with the tenets of AGW. Can you say, “survey bias”?
Which is probably better than the one that I was aware of, which was Doran and Zimmerman:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
By which you admit that your original statement *was* based on the thouroughly-debunked D&Z survey. Oh, dear…
@kr:
You’ve taken Dr. Lindzen’s comments “out of context.”
/snark
Wombats aren’t known for their critical thinking skills. How many skeptical scientist would there be if funding was distributed equally to both sides? Use your pecan size brain.
KR says:
“15 years of raw data is just not sufficient to establish a linear trend in the presence of noise and variation.”
____________________________
Goal Post Moving AGAIN???
The government seems to think 10 years with thirty points is good enough to establish a trend in monthly data with seasonal variability.
No doubt he is emeritus status in order to say these things in public. The science and NGO mullahs will not be happy with this behavior. His 200 publications are water under the bridge at this point. How many in his audience have even looked at the graphs of the multidecadal ocean temp cycles to compare them to indicators of global temps, sea ice, and sea levels? And how many have considered the implications of the first and second difference of change in these cycles? That alone is the starting point for any renaissance thinker in these dark ages of climate science and policy. The use of a simple average for these multidecal cycles is unprofessional behavior by the modelers akin to using an average for economic recessions going into the great recession without considering the underlying differences and implications therein.
Gail says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/lindzen-at-sandia-national-labs-climate-models-are-flawed/#comment-1043177
Henry says
sorry for late reply
been busy
the PDO and AMO definitely show 50 year cycles.
obviously those (ocean) cycles are lagging as to what happens right now in the upper atmosphere,
which is where I am looking, by concentratingon observing maxima
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
try follow the comment here
is is my comment on Steve Koahane who seems not to have responded
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1043017
Wombat says, “Lindzen is 399th on this list of scientists ordered by number of citations to their papers that are on the subject of climate change”
=====================================
You Sir, are as batty as your name. Really!!! Your definition of a paper on the subject of climate change includes thousands of inane papers by scientist that know zip about atmospheric studies. They may know a little bit about how in such and such region there was a drought, or a flood, and in that region these species were harmed, be it plants, animals, etc, and they then look at some stupid climate model that says, “It worse then we thought, these events will increase in the future if we do not tax the air you breath now”. From there they project that frogs will get bigger, or frogs will get smaller, or penguins will get to warm, or polar bears will drown, or forrests will burn up ,etc,etc,etc.
So these dweebs that write these papers , and site each other in a circle jerk of monumental porportions, know more about atmospheric science then Richard Lindzen. Go spread your BS elsewhere.
Just a followup to this comment upthread …
I don’t know if it is related but there seem to have been some outages at major websites:
Google Talk and Twitter suffer service outages
Twitter goes down again for extended period [Update ..back up]
They don’t know exactly why yet but there is talk of a DDoS hacking attack upstream but it could also be weather related (which likely caused the problems earlier this month). Now there is a major storm plowing up through the Northeast from the Midwest red-flagged on the Weather Channel. More problems could be coming.
By far the best compilation ever of the AGW story real hard evidence that thank god he has made the effort to retain all the original graphs and can now show how they were changed this is DE Facto evidence and will be used in court to bring these fraudster to Justice
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/history-of-how-this-fraud-was-perpetrated/ Its Time WUWT took a much harder stance on this issue. Although its a wonderful site however this is a scientific data driven argument and I think only Goddard is actually giving us the REAL HARD DATA goods we need (ie ther is no argument now it is fraud)
When there is a record cold spell, the AGW profiteers say “Weather is not climate. 2 to 4 C over the next 100 years.” When there is a heat wave, they say “Weather is indeed climate. Witness all the records being broken this summer. We told you so.” During the next record cold spell, they will say “We’ve said all along weather is not climate. 2 to 4 C over the next 100 years.”
Prof. Lindzen errs in his use of language. In particular, a “prediction” has a mathematical form that is not matched by the product of any of the IPCC’s climate models.
Wombat says:
July 26, 2012 at 12:54 am
==============
I would suggest math courses for you. Also learn to interpret a graph then you can debunk the PNAS paper you referenced to.
Question for you to research: How often were the CE (convinced by the evidence (CE) of anthropogenic climate change) category cited while their papers were being debunked?
The PNAS link was all I needed to read before I saw a waste of time with this.
Rogelio Diaz says:
July 26, 2012 at 1:57 pm
=================
Steve Goddard is doing a good job with the historical references. His site may very well be used as a source of historical reference when the trials begin. I check it daily.
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 9:40 pm
15 years of raw data is just not sufficient to establish a linear trend in the presence of noise and variation. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 for examples of insignificant periods.
I checked your site and this is what it says: “BEST land-only surface temperature data (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, 1998 to 2005, 2002 to 2010 (blue)”
Your logic escapes me. You say “15 years of raw data is just not sufficient” and immediately proceed to show that there is noise in the following number of years: 7, 8, 7, 6, 7 and 8. (Or add 1 if the years were inclusive.) I was not talking about those low numbers.
Over two years ago I was talking with a ‘warmist’ about Phil Jones’ interview. He said 8 years means nothing and can be ignored, but 15 years is more significant. He was extremely upset that the news media had the headlines about 15 years of no warming without mentioning the significance. Today that would not matter.
(P.S. Thank you to all others who responded to KR. I had to teach physics and chemistry all day.)
Rogelio Diaz says:
July 26, 2012 at 1:57 pm
============
One more comment if I may. Many of the “better” blogs I visit have a niche. Steve Goddard (Real Science) has his and is doing a goob job and getting better. Anthony Watts (WUWT) has a really BIG niche and is very well established and respected. Steve McIntyre has his and leads the field by far in his niche. There are many others that deserve my recognition, but I have made my point. I think Anthony is covering as many bases as he can manage. That’s why we are here.
There is an army of independants and no centralized marching orders or talking points. Just a march for the truth from many angles. The search for the truth has no boundries or unified direction. It is coming from everywhere, is in motion, and unstoppable.
Anthony knows Watts Up With That! 😉
Moderators – I posted a reply, which I thought was quite tame, to Will Eschenbach about 10-12 hours ago (9-10AM EST?). I haven’t seen it posted.
Hopefully I haven’t been moderated – has it ended up in the bit-bucket? Or are there site issues? (Apparently a number of sites have been having problems over the last 24 hours)
Please delete this message from the thread, as it’s aimed entirely at the site admins….
[REPLY: I haven’t seen it and it is not any place I can see. Resubmit it. Normally, if something is out of line, we let you know what it is. If it’s out of line, I’ll tell you. Sometimes, however, stuff just happens…. and your fortitude in waitn g12 hours is admirable. -REP]
KR says:
July 25, 2012 at 8:49 pm
“As to 60 year cycles – I would consider those possible, but definitely not plausible – there’s no theoretic mechanism for storing/blocking energy for that period of time, and because the forcings we do know about over the last few hundred years match the pattern of climate change quite well without them. Why reject mechanisms we have evidence for, in favor of unsupported patterns without evidence?”
====================
You just torpedoed your ship. I was hoping to see a conversion / learning curve in your understanding of the issues being addressed to you by the other commenters.
The entire so-called “climate science” community must be aware of the 60 – 70 year climate cycle. So should you. Either you have an agenda or you need to do a little research. That is something that you must decide for yourself.
David’s post on Wombat says, “Lindzen is 399th…” was very polite but very funny and sadly also very accurate. Climate science is an interdisciplinary field similar to a field I studied (cognitive sciences) and the academics in this field are simply not all at the same level. Most academics in the field of climate science would be unable to even understand a paper by Lindzen or others working on his research topics (whether sceptical or warmist). Wombat’s arguments are of course political drivel. That is why a paper by Einstein, i.e., On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, gets 708 citations according to Google Scholar, and a paper by Andrew Wakefield, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” gets 1488 citations – yet this second paper was fabricated and was then retracted by The Lancet.
But according to Wombat logic, Wakefield is a better researcher than Einstein. Or… Wombat is either not very bright, or intentionally disingenuous.
eyesonu says
The entire so-called “climate science” community must be aware of the 60 – 70 year climate cycle
Henry says
According to my calculations, looking rather at the development of maximum temps, i.e. the energy input,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
the cycle is 50 years give or take one or two years
However, because of the flatness of the curve when approaching the zero points, i.e. no GW and no GC, and when looking at the means (i.e. earth average energy output) you might easily be lulled in to thinking there is 5 years more on either side, making it a 60 year cycle at the very most.
The 50 year cycle was very important in the Jewish calendar, 7 x 7 + 1 Jubilee year, when all property went to their original owners. I suspect Moses got this information from the Egyptians, the pyramid builders who were experts on the energy we get from the sun.
BTW I strongly suspect the cycle is related to ozone which was at its lowest point in the nineties – so the ozone scare due to CFC’s also seems to have been a complete hoax.
When testifying in public fora, scientists like Lindzen need to abandon their delicate sense of “appropriate professional vocabulary.” Use phrases that communicate to their audiences, like “Crippled incompetent junk”, or “Laughably inaccurate cartoons”.
“Flawed” just doesn’t cut it, Richard.
“Modelers, he (Lindzen) said, merely have used aerosols as a kind of fudge factor to make their models come out right.”
Too true. See below, from 2009
– Allan
__________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/blue-sky-research-reveals-trends-in-air-pollution-clears-way-for-new-climate-change-studies/#comments
Allan M R MacRae (17:53:04) :
Please see Douglas Hoyt’s post below. He is the same D.V. Hoyt who authored/co-authored the four papers referenced below.
Please note there is historic data available that could be of considerable use.
BUT: “There is no funding to do complete checks.”
Anyone want to take on this challenge?
Suggest tapping into the millions that Obama has allocated for climate modelling to get these modelers some real data on aerosols.
I understand they’ve been inventing aerosol data to get their models to history-match the cooling period from ~1945-1975. Hoyt says so such evidence exists in his data.
Regards, Allan
__________________
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and Marvin in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
_____________________________________________________________________
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Re #328
“Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?” Yes.
“Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century.
Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan.
There is no funding to do complete checks.
KR wrote:
“As to 60 year cycles – I would consider those possible, but definitely not plausible – there’s no theoretic mechanism for storing/blocking energy for that period of time, and because the forcings we do know about over the last few hundred years match the pattern of climate change quite well without them. Why reject mechanisms we have evidence for, in favor of unsupported patterns without evidence?”
===============
Is PDO, AMO, et al, imaginary?
So when Michael Mann, Park and Bradley (heroes of the global warming movement) discuss these cycles in Nature and argue that they are ‘intrinsic to the natural climate system’:
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MPB1995.PDF
…or for that matter Google scholar brings up hundreds of articles and papers on these cycles, what does one make of KR’s opinion that such cycles are possible but ‘not plausible’ ?
It would be more interesting if KR provided links to published papers that attempt to refute these cycles rather than merely an expression of an opinion from KR that he does not believe in them. Is this because he believes CO2 explains everything so therefore other explanations are by default in ‘contest’ with his beliefs? Don’t know.
KR says:
July 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Moderators – I posted a reply, which I thought was quite tame, to Will Eschenbach about 10-12 hours ago (9-10AM EST?). I haven’t seen it posted.
Hopefully I haven’t been moderated – has it ended up in the bit-bucket? Or are there site issues?
Sometimes it’s just a WordPress artifact, KR. I’ve had both replies and innocuous comments disappear right after hitting “Post Comment” over the past couple of years. Not often, but it happens…
Allan MacRae says:
July 26, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Correction of typo above:
I understand they’ve been inventing aerosol data to get their models to history-match the cooling period from ~1945-1975. Hoyt says no such evidence exists in his data.
But, he (Lindzen) said, “predictions based on high (climate) sensitivity ran well ahead of observations.”
…
Modelers, he said, merely have used aerosols as a kind of fudge factor to make their models come out right.
___________
I agree with the above statements by Richard Lindzen. I have said so many times before…
… and IF actual aerosol data is used rather than fudged, fabricated data, THEN climate sensitivity to CO2 is necessarily much lower than modellers estimates and is probably so small as to be inconsequential.
This excerpt is from 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/18/recent-differences-between-giss-and-ncdc-sst-anomaly-data-and-a-look-at-the-multiple-ncdc-sst-datasets/#comment-133887
(Excerpt)
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I wrote in 2003:
“Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air’s increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree (C).”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
__________________
This leads to the conclusion that increased atmospheric CO2 is no cause for alarm. Politicians, please take note.
More recent data and analyses suggests to me that even this 1 degree C is high due to negative feedbacks, and actual “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is so close to zero as to be practically inconsequential.
The only known impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is improved plant yields.
Furthermore, CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, so we don’t even know if CO2 drives temperature at all, and the evidence suggests that temperature drives CO2. When I wrote this conclusion in January 2008 I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate, but we’ll see who is right.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.
Regards, Allan
Notes:
The above was written ~2 years before Murry Salby’s address to the Sydney Institute in 2011.
Here is a more recent presentation to the Sydney Institute by Salby – it takes a while to load:
http://podcast.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcasts/2012/THE_SYDNEY_INSTITUTE_24_JUL_MURRY_SALBY.mp3
@Dana Nuccitelli
How can you claim climate inertia, when at the same time the rest of the AGW community is falling over each other to produce a hockey stick. Not much intertia in those?
Brian H says:
July 26, 2012 at 10:58 pm
When testifying in public fora, scientists like Lindzen need to abandon their delicate sense of “appropriate professional vocabulary.” Use phrases that communicate to their audiences, like “Crippled incompetent junk”, or “Laughably inaccurate cartoons”.
“Flawed” just doesn’t cut it, Richard.
===================
You make a very valid point and express it in a very easy to understand manner. 😉
But I’m not sure the politicians or MSM would even understand that. Some simply refuse to understand. It’s that CAGW worshiping thing.
One more thing for KR and the +- 60 year cycle. A strong argument could be made that there has been much focus of the immediate need to take action on CAGW because the window of the upward slope of the sinusoidal curve was nearing the apex of the cycle in temp and an all out push had to be made to get the desired regulations and agendas secured before the coming decline that would last for the next 30 +- years. In other words lie, cheat, steal, beg, obfuscate, anything goes because it’s the last chance for CAGW goodies.
Will Climategate 3 prove this?
@Dana Nuccitelli @MrV
I recently looked into the climate inertia story using GISS II GCM model, Hadcrut3 temperature data and the Mauna Loa CO2 data. The GCM model fits with an e-folding time of ~15 years so 3 decades after an impulse the climate will have warmed to 86% of its final value. If you assume that only CO2 greenhouse effects temperatures (ignoring 60 year oscillations etc.) and then fit the temperature data to the CO2 data, including climate inertia effects then I find:
– climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2) = 2.1 deg. C.
– 2012 CO2 levels eventually leads to 1 deg. warming over pre-industrial levels.
– If the world carries on burning fossil fuels under business as usual scenario A1B) until 2100, but then slowly switches to nuclear fusion then the temperature peaks at 3 degrees warming in 2250 recovering by 3000. By then we may well have another glaciation to worry about.
more information here…
Willis Eschenbach – Regarding volcanic aerosols, I would disagree with you rather strongly, as the evidence in the field supports a negative aerosol effect and because (although Pinatubo and similar events have led to refinement of various models) the models in existence at that time were still close matches. But this is quite frankly a bit off topic.
Lindzen claimed that “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.” This is incorrect in all respects. Doubling of CO2 should cause a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing. CO2 alone since 1750 has a forcing of 1.66 W/m^2, while adding up all GHG’s, insolation, black carbon, and aerosol influences (all the forcings) sums to a change of 1.6 W/m^2 since 1750.
Lindzen error 1: That’s about 40% of a doubling, not 100%.
We’ve seen ~0.8°C warming since 1750. If all warming were realized, no imbalances whatsoever (which hasn’t happened yet), that means a climate sensitivity of ~0.8°C / 0.40, or >= 2°C/doubling. Given the continuing increasing trend of ocean heat content (meaning a continuing imbalance, thermal inertia on the part of the oceans), the full sensitivity will be perhaps 25-50% higher, or 2.5-3°C/doubling.
Lindzen error 2: His claimed <1°C/doubling of CO2 sensitivity is contradicted by even the most sympathetic view of the observed change in temperatures, which limit minimum sensitivity to 2°C/doubling of CO2.
Lindzen’s statement is wholly incorrect.
The claim is often made that “aerosol forcing is uncertain” – but again that does not justify claiming an extreme value as ground truth. Aerosol forcing estimates are a best estimate -1.3 W/m^2, full range of -0.4 to -2.7. If it’s -0.4 W/m^2 (a 1/20 chance given the evidence), then climate sensitivity (with no thermal inertia, mind you) might be as low as 1.84°C/doubling. Another 1/20 chance, though, is that aerosol forcings are -2.4 W/m^2, and climate sensitivity is at least 7.4°C/doubling! Those have equal chances given the data – selecting the most favorable end of the range is simply wishful thinking.
Skepticism should be believe apportioned proportionally to the evidence – and the mean estimate of aerosol forcing (-1.3 W/m^2) is consistent with a climate sensitivity of ~2.5°C/doubling of CO2, right in the IPCC range established with multiple lines of evidence.
—
So – Lindzen’s claim in this regard is ridiculous, and I’m personally rather saddened that someone as intelligent as he would make such unsupportable statements.
Regarding my last post – I may have mistyped; absolute minimum sensitivity if you assume rolling all snake-eyes with aerosols would be ~1.184C/doubling, while rolling all sixes would give a sensitivity of 7.4C/doubling. If I mistyped 1.84, my bad. Either way, Lindzen’s <1C/doubling sensitivity claim is out of range with this data, even with the rather unphysical assumption of zero thermal inertia – real sensitivity will be higher.
And neither snake-eyes or double 6’s are very likely…
KR: these estimates of ‘forcings’ due to GHGs are fundamentally wrong.
It’s because direct thermalisation is quantum excluded. I had thought you would get indirect thermalisation, mainly at clouds, with the GHGs being an energy transfer medium, so the forcing would be much lower [the energy is spread to the atmospheric window in clouds].
However, the only proper conclusion is that for IR self-absorbing GHGs, [CO2>~200 ppmV] the apparent absorption of those bands is not absorption in the atmosphere, instead it’s the restriction of IR emission from the earth’s surface. There can be NO CO2-AGW, the GHE of a water planet is fixed by the first small concentration of water vapour.
This is controversial, but there’s no experimental proof of any CO2-AGW [the PET bottle experiment is warmed by the bottle walls] and the total GHE can only be ~9 K once you remove the lapse rate contribution in the flat Earth model.
This is buit one area which climate science has got wrong. there are four more.
KR says
Doubling of CO2 should cause a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing.
Henry says
I could not find actual test results supporting this claim.
AR4 ex IPCC seems to have evaluated the increases in relevant GHG’s and other relevant factors versus the actual increase in temp. observed since 1750 and then allocated a “forcing”
to each, rather like putting the horse behind the cart. The worst mistake a scientist can make: assume you know the cause of a problem, and then work from the wrong end to find a solution for the problem (of global warming).
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
in the meantime I found the global warming was natural
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
and I don’t trust much of the temp. “global” record before 1935…..
please provide me with a calibration certificate of a thermometer from, say,
1750?
KR says: July 27, 2012 at 9:18 am
I think you are wrong on all points – please show your math.
Allan MacRae – “”…please show your math
All numbers in my previous two posts come from the ratio(s) of forcings (with/without/at extremes of aerosol effect range) to the well-accepted no feedback forcing of doubling CO2, or 3.7 W/m^2. That by itself would lead to a warming of ~1.1°C, whereas various feedbacks based upon that change provide the various estimates of sensitivity. What I did was to compare forcing levels against observed instrumental temperature change to look at what total climate sensitivity to forcing might be.
I had thought that fairly easy to calculate, but since you ask, here are the numbers _without_ any thermal inertia (unrealistic, the climate has not yet adjusted to current forcings, let alone ongoing ones, but…):
1.6 W/m^2 (since 1750) /3.7 = 0.4, 0.8°C/0.4 = 2°C/doubling of CO2. (lower limit without thermal inertia, most likely aerosol forcings)
2-sigma least negative aerosol forcing of -0.4 (compared to -1.3 best estimate), gives 0.8 / (2.5 / 3.7) = 1.184°C/doubling.
2-sigma most negative aerosol forcing of -2.4 gives 0.8 / (0.5 / 3.7) = 7.4°C/doubling.
All of these estimates are low by 25-50% due to ongoing imbalances (the oceans haven’t caught up with the forcing deltas, that takes decades, and we’re still adding GHG’s), and hence should be somewhat higher. Lindzen’s claim of <1°C/doubling is absurd, and his claim of doubling and insufficient warming even more so.
If you feel I've made a math error, please point it out.
Allan MacRae – You are quite correct, I did make a math error. 2-sigma most negative aerosol forcing leads to an estimate of 5.92C/doubling, not 7.4. I had neglected the 0.8 scaling in my worksheet.
But again, Lindzen’s claim is _still_ invalid.
KR says
If you feel I’ve made a math error, please point it out.
Henry says
it’s chemistry where you and all made a mistake
Any chemistry student knows that the first smoke from the (warmed) water in a kettle is the CO2 being released. There are tons and tons of carbonate , mostly as bicarbonate dissolvced in the oceans. So, quite a number of scientists have reported that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past lagged the warming periods by quite a few hundred years. e.g. see here:http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer but cancer does not cause smoking.
So the graph that started all this nonsense from Manoa Loa actually depicts clearly what is happening: (natural) global warming is gassing CO2 out of the oceans, naturally, mostly, so to speak. Remember that that graph only started in 1956, which is after global warming had already started, if you can follow the maths from my stats,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Now, to prove that I am right, you can watch the CO2 graph from Barrow or Burrow (in Alaska) from NOAA where cooling has started quite seriously (see my results in the table for Anchorage): the results for CO2 are completely flat, and have been for quite some time.
Brian H says: @ July 26, 2012 at 10:58 pm
When testifying in public fora, scientists like Lindzen need to abandon their delicate sense of “appropriate professional vocabulary.” Use phrases that communicate to their audiences, like “Crippled incompetent junk”, or “Laughably inaccurate cartoons”.
“Flawed” just doesn’t cut it, Richard.
===================
eyesonu says: @ July 27, 2012 at 7:32 am
You make a very valid point and express it in a very easy to understand manner. 😉
But I’m not sure the politicians or MSM would even understand that. Some simply refuse to understand. It’s that CAGW worshiping thing.
=====================
No it is the POWER and MONEY worshiping thing for those in power. CAGW is just another form of The Innocents’ Club for the unthinking sheeple. We still suffer from Willi Münzenberg’s Propaganda genius.
Henry@KR
in case you don’t know:
heat + HCO3- => CO2 + OH- is what is called “outgassing”
cold + CO2 + 2H2O => HCO3- + H3O+ is what is called “sinking”
HenryP – “…(natural) global warming is gassing CO2 out of the oceans…”
There’s a very, very big problem with that hypothesis for the last 150 years, Henry. The atmospheric CO2 is increasing (quickly). But oceanic CO2 is increasing as well, as shown by the changes in ocean pH, just as expected from anthropogenic CO2 input. If the oceans were the source the ocean CO2 would have to be declining – it is not. Your claim of ocean outgassing is therefore contradicted by the data.
And no, our CO2 data doesn’t start in 1956 – see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4 for the last 800,000 years of data.
And finally, regarding your Alaska data – if you can show global cooling, then you have something worth looking at. But not local, or even regional – that’s cherry-picking. And don’t forget the oceans, 93% of the climate thermal mass, http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ where we see ongoing warming through 2000 meters! Warming has _not_ stopped.
KR says:
July 27, 2012 at 9:10 am
=====================================
KR repeats his intial assertions. Despite numerous links showing that observations do not support the particulate cooling, despite the posts showing that the first portion of a doubling always do more work then the second, despite intially ignoring the obvious, that Lindzen was referring to all forcings, plus estimated delayed feedbacks, and he was REASONABLY discounting the negative forcing of particulates, used to save the day for the P.C. CO2 weighting popular among warmist . KR further ignores the observed sixty year ocean cycles and the fact that most of the satellite trend has been in a warming PDO phase. This post is just a repeat of his intial post, with no evidence of learning or a scientific attitude.
It’s worse than that… Warmists love arguments from authority except when it’s turned on them. Not being an expert in atmospheric physics who should I believe? A professor of MIT with 240 published papers to his credit (Lindzen) who happens to be a specialist on climate sensitivity issues, or, arrogant anonymous guy on the internet (KR), who is implying that Lindzen is a cheat or fool or both, and who can spot all of Lindzen’s ‘errors’. If I had to choose, KR sounds like a crank to me.
KR says:
July 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm
HenryP – “…(natural) global warming is gassing CO2 out of the oceans…”
There’s a very, very big problem with that hypothesis for the last 150 years, Henry. The atmospheric CO2 is increasing (quickly). But oceanic CO2 is increasing as well, as shown by the changes in ocean pH, just as expected from anthropogenic CO2 input…..
_______________________________
OH, what crap. The darn oceans are:
1. BUFFERED
2. Full of phytoplankton
Do you really think the people here at WUWT are so completely uneducated they would believe the ocean acidification drivel. Good grief the oceans are BASIC not acidic! The pH is above 7. GEESHhhh…. (Oh, and if I remember correctly Henry P. is a chemist like me)
KR says:
July 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm
where we see ongoing warming through 2000 meters! Warming has _not_ stopped.
Let us assume for discussion sake that the waters that were between 1000 m and 2000 m warmed from 4.0 C to 4.2 C. Why would that have been a problem and how much money should have been spent to prevent this from happening?
How annoying> it seems my comment has gone lost because I typed an error in my e-mail address.
Henry @ KR
I was not cherry picking. I merely wanted to illustrate to you that(extra) cold will induce the sinking of CO2 into the oceans, as is happening right there in Alaska: the CO2 has been flat, because the extra that we put in the air is already being sunk.
I also checked that pH story out: it seems there are 3 stations reporting (on ocean pH) and only one of them reported an increase, but it is so small that it falls outside the accuracy of any pH meter. I have been doing pH measurement all of my life and I know how quickly they drift and how often they must be calibrated.
Even so, I know that allmost all human mining and production processes and de-salination processes produce acidic water, so if you are looking for blame on that very slight rise, if there is one,then don’t immediately start looking at the CO2.
Obviously you have no clue as to how many gigatons of carbonate are dissolved in the oceans and I also found that we really have no clue as to how many tons are added daily by under water volcanic activity (pacific and mid atlantic rifs).
My maths on my stats show that the net result is currently cooling of earth, be it ever so slight as to go largely unnoticed i.e. ca. 0.2 degrees C since 2000.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
KR says:
July 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm
And finally, regarding your Alaska data – if you can show global cooling, then you have something worth looking at. But not local, or even regional – that’s cherry-picking.
It most certainly is not cherry-picking. According to warmist doctrine, the Arctic is the bellweather — evidence of warming will manifest most strongly in those *regions* in the higher latitudes.
And don’t forget the oceans, 93% of the climate thermal mass, http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ where we see ongoing warming through 2000 meters! Warming has _not_ stopped.
It hasn’t stopped because it’s still in the middle of a 100-year cycle:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
Hi Werner
you say
“Let us assume for discussion sake that the waters that were between 1000 m and 2000 m warmed from 4.0 C to 4.2 C”
Actually this observation, if correct, is consistent with my theory that the ca. 50 year warming and cooling periods are caused by the subsequent fall and rise in ozone. I heard somewhere on WUWT that the atmosphere is now contracting which would (also) cause rising ozone levels. In the warming period 1944- 1995 , the extra warming was then caused by more energy laden radiation of <0.4 um reaching earth which is absorbed in water and then converted to heat. During the cooling period, less radiation of <0.4 um comes through, due to the rising ozone levels.
Bill Tuttle says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/lindzen-at-sandia-national-labs-climate-models-are-flawed/#comment-1046114
That is an impressive paper you gave; to quote something that struck me:
“The Pacific and Atlantic have been warming since the 1950s, and the Indian since the 1960s. The delay in the Indian Ocean may be caused by the sparsity of data before 1960″
Again, it appears that those data seem to confirm my own findings. http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Note that I calculate that global warming, as seen from the energy in-put, turned in 1995.
Because my rsquare is almost 0.998, I can even do a rough mathematical estimate on the observed curve. Note that the curve is parabolic, suggesting a completely natural process.
There is no AGW. There never was. Looking at the root of the curve on the other side I come to 1944. Those old enough to know will remember how cold the winter was of 1944.
I agree that around the zero point there will be a few years that everything looks completely flat, giving you the impression of a longer than 50 or 51 year cycle.
However, whichever way you look at it, either from the energy input by the sun, or earth’s (delayed) energy output: It does not change the fact that there is a 50 year warming cycle followed by a 50 yr cooling cycle. We are on our path back to 1944 and we will be there around 2045.
HenryP says: @ July 28, 2012 at 8:36 am
….. I heard somewhere on WUWT that the atmosphere is now contracting which would (also) cause rising ozone levels…..
____________________________
Here is your link on that Henry.
However I would think the atmosphere is expanding a bit again due to solar cycle 24 being near solar max. however it is such a weak cycle I doubt it has returned to “normal levels” since TSI has not TSI monitoring 1978 to present
ATMOSPHERIC TRANSMISSION OF DIRECT SOLAR RADIATION AT MAUNA LOA (graph) appears to have dropped a bit. Article link and the data set is HERE (stops at Feb 2011)
Real time solar wind info HERE
And a good article by astrophysicst Dr. Nir J. Shaviv
Bill Tuttle says: @ July 28, 2012 at 3:23 am
…..It most certainly is not cherry-picking. According to warmist doctrine, the Arctic is the bellweather…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bill, here is your real Arctic Bell Wether
HenryP, Gail Combs – Regarding ocean pH: http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/oa/description/oaps_intro_oa.html
Whether you consider it acidification (the correct term for a solution becoming less basic and more acidic, a decreasing pH, much as moving in any direction from the South Pole is considered moving Northward) or prefer to argue/nitpick over terminology, the pH of the oceans _is_ changing quite quickly. Although this is rather off-topic for the thread, that is what the data shows: “…will likely double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, representing perhaps the most dramatic change in ocean chemistry in over 20 million years [Feely et al., 2004 http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/feely_et_al_04_co2_ocean_science.pdf ].”
—
Various re: 2000 meters – That data (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) is for 0-2000 meters, not 1000-2000. While not as complete as anyone would like (average ocean depth is ~3790 meters), it’s the best data we have on the oceans, which are >90% of the thermal mass of the climate.
—
Various re: aerosol effects – Several people seem to be claiming that aerosols have no effect, or a positive forcing, or otherwise just don’t matter (quite frankly, I’m having trouble following _what_ is being claimed): Take a look at John N-G’s blog, where he shows volcanic aerosol effects from Pinatubo and Agong eruptions with nothing more complicated than Excel (http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/), or do a bit of Googling on industrial aerosols such as scholar.google.com/scholar?q=china+aerosol+climate+observations – aerosols have a net negative forcing, and Lindzen’s assumption of “zero” is unwarranted.
—
Finally, Will Nitschke: I do not hold with Argument from Authority, but rather prefer that my words stand on their own merits. Lindzen has made statements that are contradicted by the data, and hence I consider those statements of little worth. I’m also far from the only person to have come to that conclusion. I have not guessed at or attributed motivations or character, although you appear to be more than ready to do so in my case. Too bad – look at the data.
—
At this time I feel I’ve made my point: Lindzen’s statement on doubling CO2 forcing and insufficient warming is contradicted by the data, and I believe I’ve pointed that out. The thread is now wandering far afield, so:
Adieu.
Gail Combs says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/lindzen-at-sandia-national-labs-climate-models-are-flawed/#comment-1046243
Thanks! Good quote.
Water absorbs strongly in the UV region and because it is liquid it passes the <0.4 um quickly as heat in the top layers.
."…The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming"
Here, they seem to rely on observations of various datasets showing about +0.2 C warming since 2000. However my dataset is showing -0.2 C since 2000.
0.2 is not a lot either way, in fact my son laughed at me worrying about it, seeing that the walls in my house differ by more than 0.5 and the accuracy of most thermometers is around 0.2.
However, I believe my dataset is less dependant on calibration and therefore I will rather stick to my own dataset. Somebody is trying to rig the results or somebody is messing up with the calibration procedures. My dataset also shows that cooling will accelerate, so it will not be too long before people will begin to notice it.
HenryP says:
July 28, 2012 at 9:14 am
@ me: That is an impressive paper you gave.
Thanks, Henry, but I’m not smart enough to have given it, just to have found it (and bookmarked it).
Gail Combs says:
July 28, 2012 at 10:23 am
Bill, here is your real Arctic Bell Wether.
Gail, I don’t know what’s scarier — that you knew where to find that pic or that you knew it existed in the first place…
KR says:
July 28, 2012 at 10:42 am
Lindzen has made statements that are contradicted by the data, and hence I consider those statements of little worth. I’m also far from the only person to have come to that conclusion.
Adieu.
Translation: “All my talking points have been thoroughly skewered, so I’ll declare victory and run away.”
KR says (again)
the pH of the oceans _is_ changing quite quickly….
Henry says
Rubbish. Where? How is this calculated globally in terms of volumes?? How do you reckon it is related to CO2 sinking (see my quoted chemical reactions earlier in a post) unless there is massive sinking of CO2? (there has not been a lot of cooling yet – but from my results so far I can predict it is coming)
Bill Tuttle says: @ July 28, 2012 at 11:30 am
Gail, I don’t know what’s scarier — that you knew where to find that pic or that you knew it existed in the first place…
____________________________
I knew it had to exist. Wethers (castrated male goats) are belled and used to lead flocks of sheep and to defend them in third world countries where there is no fencing. I had a friend chased up onto the hood of the car by a very irrate wether in Mexico. The sucker must have weighed a good 250 lbs. Biggest goat I have ever seen and I owned one that was 40″ at the shoulder.
HenryP,
I am inclined to agree that we are seeing the top of the curve and that is why the temperature have been flat for 10 to 15 years. The ocean oscillations are going cold, ENSO is changing to a more La Niña dominated mode (maybe see Bob Tisdale on ENSO.) The sun has gone quiet and they have finally figured out that while TSI maybe relatively constant the ratios of the wavelengths are not. also the atmospheric wind circulations seem to be going from zonal to meridional with blocking Highs like what caused the drought in Russia last year and the drought in the USA this year. I live on the top of a windy ridge (no mosquitos) and the change in wind direction has been very apparent. It is no longer always out of the west.
You might like to read E. M Smith’s article Of Turbulence, Hadley / Ferrel Cells, and Loopy Jet Streams and Stephen Wilde’s new climate model
ANyone who still thinks warming will continue is naive and that is why the mad push to get carbon trading and carbon taxes in place before the population understands they have been “sheared like sheep” for no good reason.
Bill, pls also note that your misspelling of “bellwether” has been corrected. A “wether” is a male sheep, and a bellwether is a male sheep wearing a bell and leading a flock. Nothing to do with “weather”.
Bil Tuttle notes:
Adieu.
Translation: “All my talking points have been thoroughly skewered, so I’ll declare victory and run away
Adieu is used either by the French or Belgium/Holland
KR is not French. French people are not great at English. His English is too good.
\ Belgium people are not regarded as very clever by the Dutch people…
(I was born in Holland – I hope KR is not Dutch…)
Brian H says:
July 28, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Bill, pls also note that your misspelling of “bellwether” has been corrected.
Heh — if I’d had my third pot of coffee on time, I wouldn’t have misspelled it in the first place…
HenryP says:
…KR is not French. French people are not great at English. His English is too good.
\ Belgium people are not regarded as very clever by the Dutch people…
_________________________
ROTFLMAO, I lived in Europe for a while and that comment brings back some ‘interesting’ jokes about their cleverness.
On the wether/weather, I was trying to be nice about the spelling correction and give a good visual of the difference. It is a common mistake because the meaning of the term wether is not well known outside of sheep and goat farmers. Lots of interesting terms used in every day language that most people do not connect to the origins.
KR Wrote:
Finally, Will Nitschke: I do not hold with Argument from Authority, but rather prefer that my words stand on their own merits. Lindzen has made statements that are contradicted by the data, and hence I consider those statements of little worth. I’m also far from the only person to have come to that conclusion. I have not guessed at or attributed motivations or character, although you appear to be more than ready to do so in my case. Too bad – look at the data.
===============================
In your opening post you wrote:
“his [Lindzen’s] claim is (IMO) utter nonsense. Lindzen keeps making the same set of bad arguments over and over and they continue to be unsupportable….”
Yet you now write “I have not guessed at or attributed motivations or character [to Lindzen]”.
Seriously?
How can you claim a scientist from MIT is writing ‘utter nonsense’ and repeating unsupportable claims “over and over” while at the same time asserting you are not implying bad motivations? At best you are being disingenuous and at worst reprehensible. (Besides obviously back peddling away from your original claims or introducing ‘adjustments’ to them with each subsequent posting.)
OK, but look at this exchange from my point of view. This thread is discussing the perspective of an MIT climate researcher who is an expert in climate sensitivity issues with 240 published papers to his credit. He may, or may not, be wrong of course.
In contrast, there are a couple of anonymous posters here rubbishing his work that go by the name of “KR”, “Wombat”, etc. Their ‘evidence’ seems to consist of expressing lots of opinions based on their air chair interpretation of the data, plus several links to an amateur climate blog…
Who to believe?
Possibly if you linked to a critique by someone from the other side, i.e., a James Hansen, or Andrew Dessler? If Lindzen is so obviously wrong that he is in effect intentionally misleading the public, why don’t these guys speak up and correct him publicly? Why does it seem always left to these anonymous posters on the internet to attack scientists? And they always do so in a very arrogant and nasty way… (sigh)
Will Nitschke – A brief response, as I will be occupied by other things for the next while: If, as you seem to require (“Possibly if you linked to a critique by someone from the other side…?”) an Argument by Authority, you might find it worth reading Gavin Schmidt’s discussion of Lindzen’s House Of Lords testimony, where Lindzen gave many of the same arguments he presented in speaking to Sandia Labs:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
Schmidt discusses multiple papers, links to multiple references, to _actual data_ (which you have not presented), on and on. If you wish papers, I would suggest going to Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) and looking up some of:
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002), Harrison (2002), Lin et al. (2002), Fu et al. (2002) [eh, not a great paper IMO, actually], Del Genio & Kovari (2002), Chambers et al. (2002), Lin et al. (2003), Lin et al. (2004), Rapp et al. (2005), Trenberth et al. (2010), Lin et al. (2010), Murphy (2010), Dessler (2010), Dessler (2011).
Those are _all_ peer-reviewed direct rebuttals of Lindzen’s various works.
However, I find rather _odd_ that while accusing me of selectively favoring argumentum ad verecundiam, you are the one requesting it…
KR – I do not accept your story – you may believe it, but I do not.
What is your predictive track record? Do you have one?
I hope it is better than the IPCC’s track record – they have not yet been correct in ANY of their dire predictions.
The IPCC has a perfect record, but in the negative – the IPCC has been 100% wrong.
KR says:
July 28, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Will Nitschke – A brief response, as I will be occupied by other things for the next while: If, as you seem to require (“Possibly if you linked to a critique by someone from the other side…?”) an Argument by Authority, you might find it worth reading Gavin Schmidt’s discussion…[snipped link to 2006 RC article]…Schmidt discusses multiple papers…
What Teh Gav says:
Schmidt is demanding proof of the Null Hypothesis, which is a false argument and he *knows* that. The Null is the Null — it’s up to him to falsify it, rather than demanding proof of it.
…links to multiple references, to _actual data_ (which you have not presented), on and on.
Why are you suddenly demanding Will provide you data when there are at least eight other commenters on the thread who have already done so?
KR, I appreciate that Dessler, et al., are critical of Lindzen.They are made fools of if they do not defend themselves, that much is obvious. I was referring to *your* claims and *your* assertions that Lindzen was a repeat liar or crank. Do you have any links to academics who defend the point of view that you have expressed here? It’s dishonest to do a Gish Gallop by tossing in a heap of unrelated links to unrelated arguments if they don’t support the specific assertions you have made here. I’m sorry to sound harsh but why can’t you even use your real name? Why hide behind initials? What qualifications in this field do you have? Even if you have none, that’s fine, but what links can you provide (other than amateur blogs or un-peer reviewed claims also from blogs) that support the specific claims you are making?
E.g., By referencing Dessler (2011) I’m guessing you are referring to Desseler’s paper “Cloud variations and the earth’s energy budget”. What has this got to do, if anything, with the claims *you* have made in this thread? Can you demonstrate via peer reviewed links that you are not, in fact, a crank?
In hindsight, maybe KR is french Canadian.
OTOH
Most Canadians that I have met are very clever.
Either way, clever people never break possible ties
Au revoir is always better than adieu.
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I published an article in the PEGG in 2002:
Here is what we predicted a decade ago:
Our eight-point Summary* includes a number of predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.
Summary*
Full article at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
[end of excerpt]
______
P.S.:
In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result. This possibility (probability) concerns me.
______
P.P.S.:
In 2008, I published that dCO2/dt varied ~contemporaneously with average global temperature, and atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged temperature by ~9 months. This CO2-lags-temperature observation is consistent with longer lag times observed (on longer cycles) in the ice core data. I concluded in 2008 that temperature drives CO2, not the reverse. This conclusion is opposite to the conventional “wisdom” of BOTH sides of the rancorous global warming (CAGW) debate. I now predict that within ten years, temperature-drives-CO2 will be the newly accepted scientific premise of the climate science community.
Full article at :
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
My paper was published two years before Murry Salby presented the same conclusion, with more supporting evidence, at:
______
Finally, I conclude that the entire global warming crisis has been a huge waste of scarce global resources (see prediction #3 above) that could have been used to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today, such as providing clean drinking water and sanitation systems in the third world. In the ~25 years that the world has obsessed with alleged dangerous humanmade global warming, over 50 million children below the age of 5 have died from drinking contaminated water. That is more people (of all ages and from all sides) than were killed in World War 2. That is the “nominal” cost of the misguided obsession with global warming mania. And that reality also concerns me.
No man is an island, alone unto itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is diminished,
even as a promontory were,
even as a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were:
every man’s death concerns me, because I am concerned with mankind,
and therefore send not to know for whom the bells tolls;
it tolls for thee.
— John Donne (1624)
From Meditations, XVII
Will Nitschke – The articles I listed discuss Linzen’s various arguments for low climate sensitivity, including the recent Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper (a repeat of the errors in LC09). His arguments in this regard are thoroughly dismissed.
If you don’t follow or trust the math I presented (and nobody on this forum has shown any issues with that – other than claims that all of the data is wrong) discussing the particular point of his repeated claim that we haven’t seen as much warming as the models predicted (which ties into that sensitivity claim of his), I would suggest Rahmstorf 2008 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf) or Coby Beck 2006 (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/observations-show-climate-sensitivity/). These are direct rebuttals to this line of argument, and to Lindzen in particular.
I do, however, find it quite disappointing that you have ignored my simple math re: warming and sensitivity, demanding an Argument from Authority before you consider it seriously. From my point of view, if you cannot dig into a subject enough to evaluate methods and reasoning, you have little standing to express an opinion regarding the work of those who do.
Rahmstorf’s “Personal Postscript” sums up many of my feelings:
Allan McRae says
1) I concluded in 2008 that temperature drives CO2, not the reverse.
2) In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result. This possibility (probability) concerns me.
Henry@Allan
Allan, good comment!
1) This is what I have been saying since I started my investigations in 2009
I learned this from Fred Haynie who sadly seemed to have passed away last year.
There is a continuous process of outgassing- due to heat- and sinking of CO2 – due to cold- going on, I gave the chemical reactions earlier on in this thread.
2) It seems nobody who is anybody in climate science is plotting maxima>
YET it is exactly the maxima data that gave me a breakthrough on the warming and cooling cycles.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
You can clearly identify a parabolic relationship. From this, I saw for sure that there are 50 or 51 year warming and cooling cycles. Since 1995 we are on our path cycling back to the climate as it was in 1944. We will be there in 2045.
Because the cooling is still so small, you are probably correct in assuming that most people on earth will only notice it around 2020. By that time a few clever people will have invented the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global cooling….
Allan MacRae says: @ July 29, 2012 at 7:17 am
……In the ~25 years that the world has obsessed with alleged dangerous humanmade global warming, over 50 million children below the age of 5 have died from drinking contaminated water. That is more people (of all ages and from all sides) than were killed in World War 2. That is the “nominal” cost of the misguided obsession with global warming mania. And that reality also concerns me.
____________________
It was deliberate. Despite all the propaganda, the politicians, financiers and UN bureaucrats have deliberately sabotaged development in third world countries.
Sir Julian Huxley was the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and president from 1959–1962 of the British Eugenics Society. UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
The UNESCO propaganda says UNESCO’s “Strengthening Capacity to Combat Drought and Famine in the Horn of Africa” project aims to ease the water and food shortages faced by some nine million people …“ So I wonder how much the loans from the World bank/IMF are going to be for this project…. I wonder how much profit the corporations building dams, desal plants, doing remote sensing and digging wells are going to make?
So what is the price tag? Notice how no one ever mentions the price tag and who will actually be paying it and who will benefit.
The Founder’s statement:
It has been over sixty years, three generations, and the quality of life for many Africans has not changed from that of thousands of years ago despite the billions of dollars pored in. Cui Bono? It certainly was not the people of Africa.
This is not a subject I have done in-depth research on, but what little bit I have read indicates there is a stinking nasty mess under the glowing propaganda of the UN and World Bank.
KR quotes
CO2 is not the only factor effecting (sic) the global temperature and in fact there is a phenomenon often called Global Dimming which is counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
Henry says (earlier on)
By that time (when people will start feeling that it is getting cooler) a few clever people will have invented the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global cooling….
Henry says now
What did I tell you? They already have a story ready when you and all are going to feel the global cooling. It is going to be AGD or AGC due to AGD.
KR quotes
CO2 is not the only factor effecting (sic) the global temperature and in fact there is a phenomenon often called Global Dimming which is counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
Henry says (earlier on)
By that time (when people will start feeling that it is getting cooler) a few clever people will have invented the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global cooling….
Henry says now
What did I tell you? They already have a story ready when you and all are going to feel the cold. It is going to be AGD or AGC due to AGD
Gail Combs says: July 29, 2012 at 8:58 am
Interesting comments Gail.
You ascribe to deliberate design those sad consequences, particularly in the third world, that I have long ascribed to utter incompetence.
However, I recently began changing my opinion, such that it could become more consistent with your own.
This new (to me) hypothesis explains a lot, in that it is difficult to believe that otherwise intelligent people are truly THAT incompetent.
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/some-progress-on-the-skeptic-vs-denier-ugliness/#comment-1032384
My point is we have been ASSUMING that the radical enviros share our human values and THAT assumption is FALSE.
The radical enviros are anti-human and consistently oppose moves to increase supplies of economic energy that will improve the wellbeing of humankind. This explains their apparently nonsensical opposition to oil and gas pipelines, hydraulic fracturing, the Canadian oilsands, etc. and their apparently irrational support for inefficient, ineffective and environmentally destructive wind and solar power schemes.
The radical enviros stance is NOT primarily about the environment – that is a smokescreen – their objective is to increase energy costs, cause energy starvation and reduce human population. Their seemingly nonsensical positions are all consistent with this theme and are also consistent with their following statements.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1020878
(h/t to Wayne for the following quotations)
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
**********************************
HenryP says:
July 29, 2012 at 10:53 am
What did I tell you? They already have a story ready when you and all are going to feel the cold. It is going to be AGD or AGC due to AGD.
And they’ve already started pushing it, too:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming
Problem with that statement is that — it’s a lie. Climatologists know perfectly well that the Sahel has been undergoing cyclical, decades-long droughts *every* 30-to-60 years for at least the past 3,000 years.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16967-africa-trapped-in-megadrought-cycle.html
KR wrote:
…The articles I listed discuss Linzen’s various arguments for low climate sensitivity, including the recent Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper (a repeat of the errors in LC09). His arguments in this regard are thoroughly dismissed….
========================
Of the 14 papers you cite, only one of them is even published in the same year as Lindzen & Choi 2011. And some of these papers are over a decade old. For someone to assert that these old papers “thoroughly dismiss” a later paper that did not exist at the time, sounds rather far fetched to me. KR, obviously you are very very passionate in your beliefs on this topic, but I am really struggling to find rational content in the claims you are putting forward. Hence my questioning of some of your crank-like responses here…
Will Nitschke – My apologies, I may have assumed more background knowledge in this particular topic than is reasonable.
In Lindzen, Chou, and Hou 2001 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282001%29082%3C0417%3ADTEHAA%3E2.3.CO%3B2) Lindzen introduced the idea of an “adaptive iris” negative feedback from the tropics, using that to support his claims of low climate sensitivity. This was found to not be supportable, and Lindzen himself has stated that the “Iris” does not hold up under the data.
Lindzen and Choi 2009 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml) used a different satellite (ERBE) and some very oddly chosen time periods to claim a low climate sensitivity. Issues with this include rather curious statistical approaches and clouds driving the ENSO cycle, as seen in his comparing cloud changes to shortwave and longwave radiative changes months later. Multiple papers pointed out the issues, including the use of tropical _only_ data, when extratropical circulation involves 10x the energy that Lindzen considered, and global analysis with the _same_ methods indicates sensitivities consistent with IPCC numbers.
Lindzen and Choi 2011 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml), published in a rather peripheral journal, is simply a rehash of LC09. And it fails to address the majority of issues raised WRT LC09 – overall an insufficient response to the many criticisms rightly brought up in that regard. In particular, he still has clouds driving temperatures months later, when clouds and humidity respond to temperature in a matter of days. There’s a fairly clear discussion of the issues, wherein I have commented, here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html
So – all of those papers I listed reveal issues with Lindzen’s low sensitivity claims, the basis of his <0.5C/doubling sensitivity claims. Over and over and over, his claims in this regard have been thoroughly debunked. Hence their relevance to this discussion.
—
Have you read Rahmstorf 2008 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf) yet? If you wish to weigh in on that, or on actual issues with the math on climate sensitivity, then (and only then) might we have more to discuss…
KR you’ve done nothing but post a bunch of irrelevant links. We are not even discussing Lindzen and Choi 2011. We are talking about *your* climate sensitivity claims and peer reviewed support for them. I’m an old school sceptic, not “just” a climate sceptic. When I’ve debated Creationists in the past it’s a common tactic for them to give you a dozen links to ‘research’ that turns out to be garbage and/or not relevant to the original claim the Creationist is making. I’m sorry, but you seem to be apply the same tactic, just on a different topic.
Will Nitschke says:
July 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm
KR you’ve done nothing but post a bunch of irrelevant links. We are not even discussing Lindzen and Choi 2011. We are talking about *your* climate sensitivity claims and peer reviewed support for them.
“When your argument has become unsupportable, change the subject…”
And BTW KR, you are still engaging in the habit of citing a paper in the literature, and then adding your opinion as to why that paper is ‘garbage’ usually without any supportive citation… (It’s not clear what qualifications you have to make such authoritative pronouncements or even who you may be.) The only citation I found in your last posting was to a hobbyist blog… I don’t know if you’re a crank or not, but an awful lot of red flags are waving right now…
HenryP says: July 29, 2012 at 8:46 am
Thank you Henry, I did look at your tables and found them very interesting, at
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I no longer have the time to delve into the data the way I used to. You mention parabolas and plots – have you posted them?
I did post a note on icecap.us in Sept 2008 entitled “is This the Beginning of Global Cooling?”. Since then, Lower Tropospheric temperatures have bounced back from the sharp cooling evident at that time.
It seems obvious to me that natural variability is has a much greater impact than CO2 on global temperatures – just looking at the natural variation in the monthly average satellite and surface temperature data tells the story.
I have primarily used satellite temperatures in my analyses, since surface temperatures have been subjected to much chicanery – too many “adjustments” and really poor siting in increasingly urbanized areas – see Anthony’s latest (29July2012) announcement and previous surfacestations work.
Are you sure your surface temperatures are “raw” data , unadjusted by CRU, GISS or others?
I previously calculated a warming bias in HadCrut3 Surface Temperature Data of ~0.07C per decade for the past 3 decades.
Anyway, I hope you continue your efforts – climate science is a lot of fun. The politics… not so much.
Will Nitschke – I see you have still not:
(a) offered _any_ opinions on the math I presented earlier in the thread, demonstrating that Lindzens claim of a doubling of forcing and insufficient warming was wholly invalid – you haven’t discussed the sensitivity issue whatsoever, or
(b) read either the Rahmstorf 2008 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf) chapter which directly discusses this invalid claim of Lindzens, or any of the multiple papers critiquing Lindzen’s low sensitivity arguments. Note that Lindzen has been making this invalid claim since about 2002, and has been corrected multiple times (see the references I suggested) to no effect.
You have demanded arguments from authority, you have apparently not read any of the references I’ve pointed you to, you haven’t discussed any of the data – you have simply complained.
At this time I see reason to indulge you any more.
KR:
With respect, you are writing KRap.
Nobody wants to waste time on your ridiculous meanderings.
Allan MaRae says
Are you sure your surface temperatures are “raw” data , unadjusted by CRU, GISS or others?
I no longer have the time to delve into the data the way I used to. You mention parabolas and plots – have you posted them?
Henry says
Thanks for your comment. It does not matter to me wether they adjusted some stations, as long as they kept making the same adjustment. At each station I simply looked at the average change from the average measured over the periods indicated. It is an elegant way to sidestep those problems. This way I am also less dependant on calibration.
Of all the data presented I think the unadjusted Hadcrut 3 is the best from about 1935. Before that, and much of the rest, I don’t trust much of any of it. Of the current satellite data, I have been asking and trying to get some answers as to accuracy and precision (to present them as “global” ) and how and how often is calibrated. I got no answers. Remember that here we are looking at absolute data: results. As they are presented without error bars I don’t know how good they are and how they are being manipulated. In this way we are perhaps a bit opposite: I trust the surface stations more than I trust the satellite data.
It is interesting to note that Anthony’s 0.15 C per decade since 1979 is similar to my own (global) result of 0.014 C per annum since 1980 (see Means table). I wonder what his result would be when taken from 2000? (it seems his records only go to 2008. 8 years is too small to take a trend. You need at least 11 or 12 to enclose at least one suncycle) . I think I heard somewhere that somebody in the USA also had picked up on an overall cooling trend in the USA since 2000.
I will show the plot and put it up on the internet. It is a good idea. As I said, the global warming followed a parabolic curve (binominal). Now that it is turned into global cooling I am going to assume that at zero (i.e when there was no cooling and no warming) it turned hyperbolic with exactly the same coefficients but different signs. It would look like a sinus wave.
You agree? Anyone else here have any ideas on that for me?
(The alternative, if the temperature keeps falling parabolic, on its current path, could be that by 2045 we fall a lot deeper than the (hunger) winter of 1944….)
Hi Henry,
Re your questions on satellite data, I suggest you ask brief questions of Roy Spencer or John Christy directly. I don’t want to release either email address here, but suggest you could probably locate them through Roy’s website or UAH.
Or see
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Or data at
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
I think the satellite temperature are pretty good, far better than the surface temperatures. Much nonsense was made years ago of minor discrepancies between UAH and RSS analyses of the same satellite data – those issues were not material, in my opinion, but have now been further resolved.
You can see the apparent global warming bias in the Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature (ST) versus the Lower Troposphere (LT) in Figure 1 at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
I estimate this Hadcrut3 ST warming bias to be about 0.07C per decade.
Best, Allan
There is a discussion of Lindzen’s speech, including an analysis of his “doubling” and “not enough warming” claims, over at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1554
Minor error on my part – apparently Lindzen has been making the same claims, with the same errors of neglecting non-GHG forcings and ocean thermal inertia, since 1989; I was only aware of them since 2002. I stand corrected in that regard.