NEW 4/10/09: There is an update to this post, see below the “read the rest of this entry” – Anthony
Guest Post by Richard Lindzen, PhD.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT
This essay is from an email list that I subscribe to. Dr. Lindzen has sent this along as an addendum to his address made at ICCC 2009 in New York City. I present it here for consideration. – Anthony
Simplified Greenhouse Theory
The wavelength of visible light corresponds to the temperature of the sun’s surface (ca 6000oK). The wavelength of the heat radiation corresponds to the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere at the level from which the radiation is emitted (ca 255oK). When the earth is in equilibrium with the sun, the absorbed visible light is balanced by the emitted heat radiation.
The basic idea is that the atmosphere is roughly transparent to visible light, but, due to the presence of greenhouse substances like water vapor, clouds, and (to a much lesser extent) CO2 (which all absorb heat radiation, and hence inhibit the cooling emission), the earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of such gases.
The Perturbed Greenhouse
If one adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, one is adding to the ‘blanket’ that is inhibiting the emission of heat radiation (also commonly referred to as infrared radiation or long wave radiation). This causes the temperature of the earth to increase until equilibrium with the sun is reestablished.
For example, if one simply doubles the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increase is about 1°C.
If, however, water vapor and clouds respond to the increase in temperature in such a manner as to further enhance the ‘blanketing,’ then we have what is called a positive feedback, and the temperature needed to reestablish equilibrium will be increased. In the climate GCMs (General Circulation Models) referred to by the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), this new temperature ranges from roughly 1.5°C to 5°C.
The equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 (including the effects of feedbacks) is commonly referred to as the climate sensitivity.
Two Important Points
1. Equilibration takes time.
2. The feedbacks are responses to temperature – not to CO2 increases per se.
The time it takes depends primarily on the climate sensitivity, and the rapidity with which heat is transported down into the ocean. Both higher sensitivity and more rapid mixing lead to longer times. For the models referred to by the IPCC, this time is on the order of decades.
This all leads to a crucial observational test of feedbacks!
The Test: Preliminaries
Note that, in addition to any long term trends that may be present, temperature fluctuates on shorter time scales ranging from years to decades.
Such fluctuations are associated with the internal dynamics of the ocean- atmosphere system. Examples include the El Nino – Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.
These fluctuations must excite the feedback mechanisms that we have just described.
The Test
1. Run the models with the observed sea surface temperatures as boundary conditions.
2. Use the models to calculate the heat radiation emitted to space.
3. Use satellites to measure the heat radiation actually emitted by the earth.
When temperature fluctuations lead to warmer temperatures, emitted heat radiation should increase, but positive feedbacks should inhibit these emissions by virtue of the enhanced ‘blanketing.’ Given the model climate sensitivities, this ‘blanketing’ should typically reduce the emissions by a factor of about 2 or 3 from what one would see in the absence of feedbacks. If the satellite data confirms the calculated emissions, then this would constitute solid evidence that the model feedbacks are correct.
The Results of an Inadvertent Test
Above graph:
Comparison of the observed broadband LW and SW flux anomalies for the tropics with climate model simulations using observed SST records. The models are not given volcanic aerosols, so the should not expected to show the Mt. Pinatubo eruption effects in mid-1991 through mid-1993. The dashed line shows the mean of all five models, and the gray band shows the total rnage of model anomalies (maximum to minimum).
It is the topmost panel for long wave (LW) emission that we want.
Let us examine the top figure a bit more closely.
From 1985 until 1989 the models and observations are more or less the same – they have, in fact, been tuned to be so. However, with the warming after 1989, the observations characteristically exceed 7 times the model values. Recall that if the observations were only 2-3 times what the models produce, it would correspond to no feedback. What we see is much more than this – implying strong negative feedback. Note that the ups and downs of both the observations and the model (forced by observed sea surface temperature) follow the ups and downs of temperature (not shown).
Note that these results were sufficiently surprising that they were confirmed by at least 4 other groups:
Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.
Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, 2003: Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.
Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.
The preceding authors did not dwell on the profound implications of these results – they had not intended a test of model feedbacks! Rather, they mostly emphasized that the differences had to arise from cloud behavior (a well acknowledged weakness of current models). However, as noted by Chou and Lindzen (2005, Comments on “Examination of the Decadal Tropical Mean ERBS Nonscanner Radiation Data for the Iris Hypothesis”, J. Climate, 18, 2123-2127), the results imply a strong negative feedback regardless of what one attributes this to.
The Bottom Line
The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.
An aside on Feedbacks
Here is an easily appreciated example of positive and negative feedback. In your car, the gas and brake pedals act as negative feedbacks to reduce speed when you are going too fast and increase it when you are going too slow. If someone were to reverse the position of the pedals without informing you, then they would act as positive feedbacks: increasing your speed when you are going too fast, and slowing you down when you are going too slow.
Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no.
UPDATE: There are some suggestions (in comments) that the graph has issues of orbital decay affecting the nonscanner instrument’s field of view. I’ve sent a request off to Dr. Lindzen for clarification. – Anthony
UPDATE2: While I have not yet heard from Dr. Lindzen (it has only been 3 hours as of this writing) commenter “wmanny” found this below, apparently written by Lindzen to address the issue:
“Recently, Wong et al (Wong, Wielicki et al, 2006, Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Clim., 19, 4028-4040) have reassessed their data to reduce the magnitude of the anomaly, but the remaining anomaly still represents a substantial negative feedback, and there is reason to question the new adjustments.”
I found the text above to match “wmanny’s” comment in a presentation given by Lindzen to Colgate University on 7/11/2008 which you can see here as a PDF:
http://portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGallery/LindzenLectureBeyondModels.pdf
– Anthony
UPDATE3: I received this email today (4/10) from Dr. Lindzen. My sincere thanks for his response.
Dear Anthony,
The paper was sent out for comments, and the comments (even those from “realclimate”) are appreciated. In fact, the reduction of the difference in OLR between the 80’s and 90’s due to orbital decay seems to me to be largely correct. However, the reduction in Wong, Wielicki et al (2006) of the difference in the spikes of OLR between observations and models cannot be attributed to orbital decay, and seem to me to be questionable. Nevertheless, the differences that remain still imply negative feedbacks. We are proceeding to redo the analysis of satellite data in order to better understand what went into these analyses. The matter of net differences between the 80’s and 90’s is an interesting question. Given enough time, the radiative balance is reestablished and the anomalies can be wiped out. The time it takes for this to happen depends on climate sensitivity with adjustments occurring more rapidly when sensitivity is less. However, for the spikes, the time scales are short enough to preclude adjustment except for very low sensitivity.
That said, it has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.
Best wishes,
Dick
Sponsored IT training links:
Best quality 70-448 prep material is available for download. Pass the real exam using JN0-350 guide and E20-361 lab tutorial.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I once commented that if Al Gore and his advisor Maurice Strong moved south we were in big trouble. Well they did.
Al Gore owns land in Tennesee and Maurice Strong bought a ranch in the San Luis Valley, Colorado near the New Mexico border. Getting ready for the big freeze perhaps?? Check out the maximum of last Ice age and compare to present USA map. Interesting that Al Gore and Maurice Strong picked very good areas to locate in isn’t it??
Last Ice age <a href=”http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/NAL2215.gif” map=”
present USA map. <a href=”http://maps.google.com/maps?q=map+usa&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&ei=LBPWSdbXN8WJtgf-7JThDw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1″ map=”
Strong is also sitting on the largest Aquifer in the USA.
J. Adams’ reconstruction of North America during last the glacial period – 18,000-15,000 14C ya
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html
Craig Allen (04:49:27) :
“Due to the effects of prevailing winds and ocean currents there are places in each basin that do not show rises or in fact show falls. Presenting a single data plot from one of these spots in each ocean does not disprove the observed global rise of sea levels.”
What ‘observed global rise’ are you talking about? http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SEALEVEL.jpg If you have other data -please show it. The worst rate that can be claimed thus far has been 1 foot per century and that apparently took a vacation until we start warming up again. Relax Bangladeshis, AL Gore was just joking; you’ve actually been GAINING ground!
Mahfuzur Rahman, head of Bangladesh Water Development Board’s Coastal Study and Survey Department: “For almost a decade we have heard experts saying Bangladesh will be under water, but so far our data has shown nothing like this,”
Regarding Lindzen’s use of “Heat Radiation”.
I have a modern Handbook of Physics, which actually has a heading entitled “Heat Radiation” which it defines as electromagnetic radiation emitted by any body of finite temperature (T>0 K).
It even says “the earth receives thermal energy from the sun by heat radiation.”
So I’m not going to browbeat Prof Lindzen for using that terminology. We Physicists do know the difference; and personally I prefer to follow the pedantic line most of the time so as to not confuse non-experts; but I get lax when talking with my fellow Physicists at work; who can get as sloppy as I do. But we do keep it straight in writing.
I once wrote a technical application note about Photometry, related to Light Emitting Diode measurments. A trade technical journal picked it up and asked me if they could publish a version of it in the magazine, so I modified it to suit the magazine format.
Well they edited it and sent it back to me to “check for technical correctness.”
Well I had used terms like Luminance, Illuminance, luminous Intensity and a lot of other photometric technical terms (they’ve all changed now), and the editos simply changed these terms willy nilly, replacing them with ordinary lay synonyms; brightness and a few other things; which turned the whole paper into gobbledegook.
I had been very careful to be pedantically correct in the original, because photometry is just about the most screwed up section of physics that exists; well it’s nowhere near as bad as climatology, but it is royally screwed up.
So I simply wrote on the proof copy:- “This paper was technically correct in its original form.” and sent it off with a huff figuring that was the last time they would ask me to write them a paper.
The magazine published the original paper verbatim; never changing so much as a punctuation mark. The editor called me, and I explained the problem with replacing technical terms with lay equivalents; and after that he and I got along famously.
George
“”” Craig Allen (04:49:27) :
Bill Illis:
You appear to have presented plots of sea level data from single locations while trying to suggest that these represent ocean-wide trends. I quick look around the site where you found the plots (http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com)reveals maps and plots of global data that clearly demonstrate that sea level is rising by about 3mm/year globally and is also rising in each of the ocean basins.
Due to the effects of prevailing winds and ocean currents there are places in each basin that do not show rises or in fact show falls. Presenting a single data plot from one of these spots in each ocean does not disprove the observed global rise of sea levels. “””
Sometime in mid 2006, a British Dutch team reported on measurments over ten years of the Arctic Ocean sea level made with a European polar satellite.
They reported that the Arctic ocean was falling at 2.0 mm per year. They said they were very confident of their data; but didn’t know why that was happening, and would wait till the theoreticians caught up with the experimental data.
Two years earleir in june 2004; and Published in Letters to Physics Today for Jan 2005, I had predicted that when the floating sea ice melts, the sea level will go down, and not up.
The reason is 8th grade high school science. When ice melts it absorbs 80 cal per gram of latent heat of freezing, and that energy is extracted from the ocean water surrounding the ice; so it cools an astronomical amount of sea water; and since sea water has an always positive temperature coefficient of expansion; the ocean shrinks, and the sea level falls.
Of course their measured results confirmed that the floating sea ice was indeed melting over that ten yer period, as we all know. So if the claimed continuous melting doesn’t stop, the arctic ocean will presumably continue to fall as these researchers found.
No big deal, it isn’t going to drain New york harbor or any such thing.
But I don’t disagree with the general notion that sea levels are rising; they have been since the last ice age ended, and will likely do so till the next one starts; and there is nothing we could do about it anyway.
George
When I put my hand near, (not over), burning charcoal I am not technically feeling any heat from it, I am feeling my skin getting warmer because it is absorbing IR radiation. However, if my skin is bombarded by X radiation, it passes through so my skin doesn’t get warmer and I don’t notice anything.
So… would it be fair to say that the term “heat radiation” is one of convenience to generally describe radiation within the infra-red spectrum?
Bugs says:
Actually, you are wrong on that last part. There are mass extinctions but as far as I am aware life has never become extinct. Perhaps I am mistaken.
Of course, extinctions occur when species cannot adapt quickly enough to changes in the environment.
Also, I would dispense with the emotion laden wording. On geologic timescales there have been large changes in climate. It is interesting that H sapiens seems to be able to survive, based on its present range, across most of those environments.
“”” Mike M (08:44:52) :
When I put my hand near, (not over), burning charcoal I am not technically feeling any heat from it, I am feeling my skin getting warmer because it is absorbing IR radiation. However, if my skin is bombarded by X radiation, it passes through so my skin doesn’t get warmer and I don’t notice anything.
So… would it be fair to say that the term “heat radiation” is one of convenience to generally describe radiation within the infra-red spectrum? “””
Mike I would say that is a fair statement; except that most of the radiation that comes from the sun would not be in the IR. Taking 500 nm as being the peak of a 6000K BB radiation spectrum, then 800nm would be 1.6 times the peak wavelength.
According to the Bible of Color; “The Science of Color” by the Committee on Color of the Optivcal Society of America, luminosity which by definition is an eye response, is measurable from 300nm out to 1000 nm wavelength range; but that is under extreme laboratory conditions. For young person eyes the practical range of “Visible light is 400-800 nm, and the textbook actually gives luminosity numbers from 390 to 780 nm.
So I think it is reasonable to say 800 =IR
So the IR is less than 0.8 of the peak wavelength, and about 12% (roughly) of the total solar spectrum is UV.
About 43-45% of the solar spectrum is beyong 800 and qualifies as IR.
But that leaves about 44% in the visible.
If you filter out the UV and the IR, there is plenty of solar energy to cause warming.
A lot of the IR won’t go through ordinary window glass, but you have to be careful because if it is absorbed by the window glass, the glass gets hot, and then emits long wave IR which will warm you.
In any case, the sensation which we call “heat” is nothing more than mechanical kinetic energy of molecular or atomic vibration.
In ideal gases those mechanical vibrations have a velocity distribution that is Maxwell-Boltzman which is of the form:-
1/N(dN/dv) = 4 pi v^2(m/2pikT)^3/2 exp(-E/kT)
N is the total number of particles, v is the particle velocity, m the particle mass, and k is Boltzmann’s constant (1.380658 E-23 J/K). E is the particle Energy.
It might be instructive to note here:-
E = mc^2 = hf = kT = (mv^2)/2 (I’ll leave out the electric energy equivalent) you can figure out what the other equivalences are.
Atomic particles have three degrees of freedom; those being translations on the three Euclidean geometry axes. Diatomic molecules, have an axis joining the atoms, and add two more degrees of freedom which are rotations about the two remaining axes perpendicular to the molecule axis. Molecules with three or more atoms usually have three rotational degrees of freedom giving them six total; and in determining things like specific heats; one would typically assign an energy of kT to each degree of freedom; and then do a lot od statistical math to come up with an answer for the temperature rise for a given energy input to a sample of N molecules of mass m.
You have to figure out the total nuber of degrees of freedom in the system..
The one thing I remember from Jean’s derivation of the low temperature specific heat of solids, is that to get a final simple answer, you have to cancel out a factor and say it is approximately one (1).
The factor you just tossed out is actually Avogadro’s number 6.022E23/mol
which most people would not think of as approximately one.
But the expression of which this nuisance factor is included, contains factorial Avogadro’s number; which is a bloody big number in anybody’s language, so calling 6E23 roughly one may indeed be justified. The resulting answer was experimentally verified.
“This causes the temperature of the earth to increase until equilibrium with the sun is reestablished.”
How does a warmer earth facilitate equilibrium?
This needs more follow up. One of my great frustrations in the Climate bloggery is how the sharp criticisms blow up and then fall away without resolution. Somebody is wrong here – is it Chris Colose or Lindzen/you?
RealClimate.org is trashing your post, claiming that Lindzen’s ignoring the updated data.
Gavin to me (JoeDuck / Joe Hunkins)
For people like you to assume that corrections to scientific mistakes automatically imply the same level of advocacy as people deliberately making such mistakes is simply wrong. But quite revealing. – gavin]
Joe to Gavin:
A little advocacy never hurt anybody, right? Everybody agrees there should be no advocacy involved that would contaminate data processing, but I think too many now feel we need advocacy in the interpretations of the findings, creating many slippery statistical slopes.
But isn’t it clear that updating the data along the lines Chris suggests still leaves Lindzen’s point intact, though weaker?
You seem to be suggesting Lindzen is deliberately choosing the dates when it seems clear he simply used his older analysis to make the same point, which is more along the lines of objecting to the lack of falsifiability rather than the particulars of this data set. That’s the same junk M&M pull on you often.
Mike M:
What the?!
The chart that you have presented demonstrates clearly that you are wrong. The data shows that the trend in sea level rise continues. You can cherry pick numerous short segments along that data plot that you could claim prove that temperatures are going down (or up). But the overall trend is up up up, and recent data does not deviate from that trend.
Consider this: your chart has a plotted regression trend line with a slope of 3.3mm/year with an error estimate of 0.4mm/year (presumably that is the 95% error estimate). In the last three years (when you claim sea levels have been dropping) the 60 day running mean has intersected or touched that line 15 times.
Please keep presenting data that contradicts your case. It’s very helpful.
Craig Allen,
From the IPCC:
It appears that you are repeating what the IPCC says: that the current very small rise in the sea level is an entirely natural function of the Earth’s emergence from the last major Ice Age.
In other words, there is no measurable anthropogenic “finger print” on the very small, and entirely natural continuing rise in the sea level.
If the effect of human-produced CO2 on the sea level [and that is the central question in the whole AGW debate] can be separated from what is naturally occurring, please show me. I am a skeptic. You need to provide evidence [and not flimsy, model-based “evidence”] that an increase in human emission of carbon dioxide is causing the sea level to rise faster than it would without those emissions — and in a measurable way [and please, no links to the always-inaccurate GCMs. The IPCC routinely gets egg on its collective face for claiming in its “projections” that its models once again have turned out to be wrong. Real world, empirical evidence will be fine. Thanx.]
Smokey:
Hmm, I suggest that other readers actually go and read what that IPCC executive summary of the chapter on sea level rise actually says.
It quite clearly does not say that “the current very small rise in the sea level is an entirely natural function of the Earth’s emergence from the last major Ice Age.”
Scientists conducting research in the field, and who contribute to research that is summarised in IPCC reports, inclusing organisations such as the CSIRO contend that, based on many lines of evidence, sea levels rose rapidly as we came out of the last ice age, that this slowed markedly and then came to a near standstill for the last thousand years or so and that the rate of rise has then accelerated over the last 150 years or so.
As the IPCC report and the CSIRO say, there are a number of contributors to sea level change at any particular location. Scientists in the field are continuously working to improve their data and to separate out and estimate the contributions from the various causes. Unsurprisingly, they are very aware of contributors such as isosatic rise and continue to work at better accounting for such factors.
The effect of human-produced CO2 on the sea level is clearly NOT the “central question in the whole AGW debate”. Although it is of course important. We know that a warming World will cause sea levels to rise through factors such as glacial melt and thermal expansion. This will be a big problem for infrastructure and ecosystems in coastal regions. And evidence is emerging that seems to show that an acceleration is under way.
You phobia about models is irrational. They are a useful tool for assisting in the understanding of complex systems in just about every facet of science and engineering. Global Climate models are constantly being improved, but they will never perfectly emulate the Earths climate system. None-the-less they do enable scientists to get a much better idea of the likely effects of humanities ramping up of green house gas emissions. But the broad conclusions about the of increasing the concentrations of infrared absorbing gasses in the atmosphere can be made independently of such models.
By the way, the fact that CO2 emissions are tracking at the high end of the scenarios used as input to climate models. And that sea levels are tracking at the high end of model predictions, is no cause for comfort.
Also, be aware that the last IPCC report is a summary of the state of knowledge as of about a year before the report has published. A lot has bean learned since then.
Anyway, the point of my original post to Bill Illis was that he claimed that sea level has ceased to rise over the past few years, whereas the data clearly contradicts that assertion. So, I think you have a bone to pick with Bill. Is it rising as you appear to agree or is it not as he claims in spite of the available evidence?
Scientists are beavering away at coming to a coherrent understanding of how the climate system works, what it has done, is doing and will do. Where they uncover apparent contradictions in their findings they beaver away to resolve them. By contrast, [snip] seems to be perfectly happy with the contradictory nature of their mish-mass of claims, as longs a each claim on it’s own seems to challenge the existence of AGW, or the seriousness of it’s possible impacts.
“near standstill for the last thousand years or so and that the rate of rise has then accelerated over the last 150 years or so.”
Really? How do they “know” that?
You mean to tell me that during the Little Ice Age there was no lowering of sea levels. Things just flat-lined? Are you claiming that sea levels always remain perfectly level between ice ages and that is normal? Based on what measurements? Measurements by our Cro-magnon or simian ancestors? What possible accurate and direct measurements could we have from before the last ice age?
You have a lot more faith in off the cuff claims than I do. Who’s to say that that “flat-lining” is “normal”. Perhaps normal is that sea levels fluctuate all the time.
Ditto. A response from Prof. Lindzen would be helpful.
/Mr Lynn
Craig, because much is not clear about sea level, especially in terms of oceanic oscillations, it is best to view the noisy data either without the linear trend line or at most, a moving average. My personal opinion also tells me that the data pool is a rather skinny set that may not even rise to the level of statistically being able to overcome the number of variables that must be considered. Meaning that when a study is done that includes many variables, the number of subjects (in this case sea level gauges) must increase. Global sea level graphs are simply the opening step to the classical model of scientific discovery. Observations, such as sea level, must then be followed by the scientific method to determine what is happening and why. In this case, truth and belief can easily get mixed in the study and at best, bias the conclusion, and at worst, color what you see from the beginning.
I don’t often refer to Wiki for scientific information but the article on the scientific method is a really good one, well worth the read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Craig Allen:
Of course it is. Why else would alarmists keep talking about the mysterious CO2-caused runaway global warming “tipping point”, unless that was the central question?
If it was agreed that a change in atmospheric CO2 does not matter [and since the data shows that, in fact, changes in CO2 don’t matter much, if at all], then we could use those $Billions/$Trillions that are presumed to be required to ‘fight climate change’ on worthwhile projects instead, benefitting the entire human race rather than the relatively few rent-seeking grant applicants and politicians who have learned how to game the system for their own benefit.
Allowing the repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2 hypothesis to continue to suck up the money available for actual problem solving is simply a devious method to raise taxes. It starves all the other science disciplines of necessary funding… and it’s based on a falsified hypothesis! So, Yes, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis IS the central question in the whole AGW debate.
If you give up the notion that CO2 significantly matters, then you lose your entire argument. Naturally, then, you must defend the AGW/CO2 hypothesis, right or wrong.
In this case, it is wrong. Believers in the failed AGW/CO2 hypothesis can not accept reality — because that would result in a major loss of funding. But of course you already knew that.
[Thanks Pamela Grey for that interesting link!]
Anthony,
It appears from the comments that Dr. Lindzen is using a data set that has been withdrawn because of substantial errors that were later corrected. Why do you allow this use of outdated data in this deceptive manner in your blog? I thought you always insisted that data be carefully vetted.
Mike Sweet
REPLY: I disagree with your characterization of “deceptive”. Please read the update on the main body (at the bottom). Dr. Lindzen has questioned the corrections, which is why I think he chose as he did. – Anthony
In adjustment 2 to this aricle, you say that Lindzen states that there is “there is reason to question the new adjustments.” (The ones that would if valid completely undermine his argument.)
Can we see his reasons please. It goes to the heart of the legitimacy or otherwise of this article. Many people would be fascinated to understand his reasoning.
REPLY:I agree, and I’ve inquired. I’m waiting on correspondence from him in that matter. – Anthony
Craig Allen
“Can we see his reasons please. It goes to the heart of the legitimacy or otherwise of this article.”
No. it does not go to the heart of the argument. Quit obfuscating!
It is the responsibility of those promoting the AGW/CO2 hypothesis [like Mr. Allen] to provide substantial, real evidence that CO2 causes runaway global warming.
So far, neither Allen nor anyone else has provided such evidence. That shows that their conjecture fails.
If I am wrong, provide us with the evidence.
Smokey:
How can the validity of the data that Lindzen uses, not be of central importance to the validity of his conclusions? How can pointing this out possibly be considered to be obfuscation?
By contrast, you are trying to claim that somehow sea level rise is central to everything related to global warming. Talk about obfuscation. It’s one important predicted negative consequence of global warming. It is likely to be a very expensive and troublesome one to many communities, but it will notbe the only consequence. I live in Victoria, Australia, and I know a number of people who have lost their homes in fires recently, and I have family in farming communities that suffering terribly in the ongoing drought. I can assure you that many people here consider the effects of drought and high temperature extremes to be someone more important to them personally than sea level rise. But it does make these effect central to the debate either.
Anyway, do you think that sea level his been, or is rising? And what is the cause? If the observed rise is due to isostatic land rise that is residually occuring after the melting of ice sheets, how can that be reconciled with the assertions of other people posting here that the rise has ceased? And if the rise has accelerated over the last century or two as the data from reputable research organisations such as the CSIRO suggests, what is causing it?
Going, back to the topic of the post: Given that it is central to the validity his conclusions, why does Lindzen disagree with the corrections that have been made to the data in order to account for the decay of the orbit of the satelite that collected it? Simple question. What is the answer?
As for your other comments …
1) I’m not particularly interested indulging your ideas about a global conspiracy of scientists and politicians colluding to invent global warming in order to enrich themselves. I think it’s more than a bit loopy for you to think like that. I’m sure that there are better ways to make a buck.
2) Your assertion that because I personally have not provided you with conclusive evidence on AGW the work of the entire scientific community over many decades is somehow invalidated is lame. There is an enormous, coherent body of science pointing toward global warming as a predicted and increasingly observed consequence of increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other infrared absorbing gases. Go check it out for yourself and if you find fault, then engage in questioning and debate about specific aspects of it in an effort to come up with your own internally consistent understanding of what’s going on.
3) I’m sorry to hear that your views on taxation have such an influence on your assessment of the science.
4) What particularly do you want me to prove with evidence that you are wrong about?
Pamela Gray:
I’m very very familiar with the methods scientific in all their chaotic and splendid glory.
But what exactly are you trying to assert?
Given the data at hand, do you think that sea levels are rising, falling, staying the same, or do you think that the data is too noisy or unreliable to tell? If it is then what would scientists need to do to reveal the signal through the noise? Do you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the scientists who gather and analyse sea level data? What do you think might be causing it to rise or fall?
Smokey: “No. it does not go to the heart of the argument.”
It goes to the heart of Lindzen’s argument, which is the argument that is presented in this thread.
My first reaction on reading Lindzen’s argument was: what’s the catch? If AGW can be so easily overturned, why have no other climate scientists addressed these issues?
We now know the catch. I’m disappointed that a scientist of Lindzen’s calibre should omit important evidence, especially when his article is written expressly for the layman.
The positive aspect of this episode is that the additional evidence has been offered by people who adopted a proper degree of scepticism. So it’s a win for scientific scepticism. We can all celebrate that.
“Thanks Pamela Grey for that interesting link!”
Echoed. The discussion about it on the talk page is almost as interesting! There is even deep debate about whether ‘the’ should precede the title…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_method#Disputed
Well, that’s so easy even I can answer it:
Scientists need more data. More measurements, in more places, by different techniques, and over longer periods of time. And then, say after a decade or two, the data remain too noisy to discern a signal, then what? Maybe there’s no signal there.
/Mr Lynn
But it would appear that this hyperbolic “enormous, coherent body of science” has yet to validate its central hypothesis with successful prediction or observational confirmation. Smokey as asking for evidence—any evidence, really—(a) that “increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other infrared absorbing gases” does in fact cause “global warming”; and (b) the AGW corollary, that the human-generated contribution to this hypothetical effect is significant or even discernible.
To the contrary, as I understand it, the argument from many scientists here and elsewhere is that both hypotheses have been falsified, (a) from paleo-climactic data (CO2 follows warming, so it cannot be a cause), and (b) from contemporary measurements (e.g. no equatorial ‘hot spot’ signature).
Given that the output of climate models is not evidence, other than the very sloppy correlation of increasing CO2 with more or less increasing temperatures in the 20th century, what evidence for the AGW hypotheses is there?
/Mr Lynn