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.
Mr Lynn.
1) Physicists predict that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will cause the world to warm. It is observed to be warming through numerous lines of evidence (unless you want to cherry-pick short time periods in particular datasets). What specific evidence are you after?
2) Scientists already contend that the data clearly shows that sea levels are rising. Why do you think otherwise? When I look at the data it is clear to me that the rise is statistically significant (having done a few regressions in my time). Get the data and do a regression for yourself if you like. I guarantee you that the trend for the satellite data is significant. And the longer data sets will be significant also (although doing the statistical test is then complicated by the nonhomogeneity of the data). Why do you demand more data, more measurements, in more places, by different techniques, and over longer periods of time. How much is enough to convince you? What criteria are you using to quantify your demands.
3) Regarding the 800year delay:
As has been is explained in many many places on the internet and elsewhere, climate scientists argue that when Milankovitch cycles cause warming (primarily by causing increased sunlight at the north pole) the warming causes the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses from the oceans and probably from sources such as methane emitting permafrost. This in turn acts as a feedback which kicks temperatures up a great deal higher than they would have due to the Milankovitch cycles alone. This is the reason that temperature changes between ice ages and interglacials are rather saw toothed (rapid increase slower decrease) rather than following smooth curves that mirror the direct effect of the Milankovitch cycles. There is a delay of about 800 years between the initiation of the warming process by the Milankovitch cycles and the CO2 ramp up. So CO2 has in the past been both a response to and a cause of warming. This delayed release of CO2 following warming a big concern. This time it is us who are initiating the warming through preemptive CO2 release. If, as expected, this then causes a lot more CO2 to be release, then we are in big trouble. That release is an example of the positive feedback that everyone is so concerned about. If we get to that point there will probably be no return and we will just have to cope with what comes our way until the feedback runs it’s course (over a millennium or more). This is unknown territory because we will head into a climactic situation that has not been experienced on earth since the dawn of the age of mammals.
4) Regarding the missing equatoral hot spot:
As explained here in spite of claims to the contrary there is no missing hot spot. And besides, a hot spot is predicted regardless of the source of warming. A more relevant signature of infrared absorbing gas induced warming is in fact a cooling of the stratosphere, which has been observed, although the data is still noisier than the climatologists would like.
5) Lets flip the question about whether CO2 will cause warming. Can you come up with a reason why it won’t? I’m not a physicist, but the basic explanation of why it will makes perfect sense to me. I intend to use the same phenomenon to keep myself warm tonight, namely throwing over a blanket that will intercept my heat loss and reflect it back to me.
P.S. I wish someone would convince me that Dr Lindzen is right. It would let me sleep better.
But then I would be kept awake wondering why the ice ages occurred given his assertion that negative feedbacks preclude the possibility of such wild fluctuations in temperature!
Craig,
let me correct four of your misinterpretataions:
– there is no trend in satellite sea level data.
the trend has been adjusted (or”calibrated”) to match the trend of a number of selected boyes. this is no independant measurement.
– there has been a massive buildup of ice during the little ice age, that has been partly removed until now, contributing to sea level rise.
– australia did not experience a draught recently. rainfall anomaly is actualy positive for the last 36 months (longest period from this source). there is a negative and very local anomaly only in parts of the southwest. you appear to generalize a very local and limited personal experience:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=anomaly&area=aus&period=36month®ion=aus&time=latest
– bush fires were caused by Green policy. this has been easily proven elsewhere on his blog.
southeast not southwest
“”” Craig Allen (08:22:39) :
Mr Lynn.
1) Physicists predict that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will cause the world to warm. It is observed to be warming through numerous lines of evidence (unless you want to cherry-pick short time periods in particular datasets). What specific evidence are you after? “””
Interesting; specifically what Physicists predict that. According to the media that generally inform the public about such things; it is only computer climate models that predict that.
I’d be interested in reading a paper by a Physicist; who can report on actual Physical data; including the full effect of water in all three phases; that is including the full effect of clouds etc.
As for feedback; water alone is perfectly capable of warming up planet earth from its sub zero (C) orbital BB equilibrium temperature to our comfortable living temperatures; without any triggering mechanism from CO2 or any other trace gas.
If there really was a feedback linkage, including an 800 year delay; you would have a free running oscillator; that would run by itself without any help from Milankovitch or anybody else.
If you can cite a reference to this CO2/water feedback equation including either the frequency response or the Step function of impulse response of this feedback system; that would be very instructive for all of us; and I am sure any real Physicist making any such claims would have ready access to te real feedback equations for this system including the time or frequency response.
George
Ian Schumacher’s point about the maximum possible temperature of a planet is important . In fact , on average , the planet MUST obey the Stefan Boltzmann and Kirchhoff laws for radiative equilibrium . All “feedbacks” in the end must net out to match those laws . I have implemented these classic equations for non-uniformly shaded gray balls at http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm . Extension to colored spectra is not difficult and will yield quantitative , experimentally verifiable , values for the effects of CO2 couple of lines or any other particular change in planetary color . However , that will have to wait for either time , or support .
Bob! Thank you! I love your thought experiment of a Magnesium Oxide ball in a vacuum. That example alone makes the fallacy of current thinking crystal clear. Otherwise … what a great idea for an energy free air conditioner 😉 Put ball in vacuum outside, let cool off. Bring inside take out of vacuum … cool down house, repeat.
I brought up the fallacy of planets absorbing more radiation then a black body on the Wikipedia “Black Body” talk page a long time ago and like here and many other places, it was ignored and dismissed. It was not ignored because anyone could point out anything wrong with the logic (and I asked many to do so, because I believed I must be wrong, but couldn’t figure out where), but I believe because people thought that there was no way physicists could be making such a fundamental error (and I didn’t either).
I have asked many people if they could supply an outline for a lab experiment that would demonstrate this effect (of an object becoming warmer than a black body), but of course they could not, having to rely on the complexity of the Earth’s systems to obscure the fundamentals, or simply point to Venus and shrug their shoulders.
Cheers.
George E. Smith:
I’m not a physicist.
Real physicists are remarkably adept at understanding of the physics of the climate system and then knitting that knowledge together in models that do a remarkable and ever improving job at emulating the planet’s climate. I’m currently running three of them as a volunteer with the Climateprediction.net project. I don’t understand the details of how they work. But they seem to purr along fine. (The weather patterns that they produce look real, and none have gone obviously wonky yet. The models that Climateprediction.net puts out run in the background of users operating systems. Each one is variation on the base model of a particular experiment, so that the scientists can learn about how uncertainty about the values of certain parameters may or may not affect outcomes.
I would be fascinated to see all the anti-AGW knowledge knitted together in any manner. It would be hard though because so much of it is so contradictory.
Here’s the kicker: If a significant body of scientific knowledge can’t (or can’t conceivably) be knitted together into a conceptual, mathematical or computer model it doesn’t really rate as science. Climate scientists, like scientists in other fields are constantly beavering away at this, so that they can’t make better and more useful predictions – not just with global climate models, but with many others that address various sub-components of the system and it’s physics.
But global models will never be attempted by ant-AGW proponents because that would expose the inadequacy of the anti-AGW crowd’s pretence at real science. So what they do instead is try to discredit the very notion of using models. You might as well try to win your argument by setting about to discredit the notion of the scientific method.
You say:
Why? I imagine that without the Milankovitch cycles the climate would indeed fluctuate. As it observably does over shorter cycles (ie through mechanisms such as El Nino/La Nina and the Indian Ocean Dipole). The key question with regard to the CO2 feedback is, has the climate system behaved as if there is a feedback or as if there isn’t one. It is of course possible to use computer models to predict what would happen if there wasn’t one. And I suspect that climate physicists have done this. But lets do it conceptually. Can you think of a reason why the temperature fluctuations between glacial and interglacial periods would be saw toothed in shape if there is no greenhouse gas feedback? Why is the rate of the ramp up in temperature at the beginning of an interglacial generally faster than the rate of decrease at the end, and why don’t the temperatures follow smooth curves like the Milankovitch cycles
With regard to your request that I explain to you the details of how radiation physics play out in the atmosphere – if you want to understand physics, go read or talk to an atmospheric physicist.
My favourite one likes to blog as Eli Rabbit.
The following posts should provide you with lots of food for thought. I repeat, I’m not a physicist, so direct your questions to Eli.
– The greenhouse effect is a wicked combination of spectroscopy, radiation and collision dynamics superimposed on fluid flow …
– Calculators for spectra, atmospheric profiles and much more …
– Modelling the effects of pressure on spectral broadening 1
– Modelling the effects of pressure on spectral broadening 2
A complaint:
How come no one here can be bothered to respond to any of my rebuttals of plainly wrong ideas or straight forward requests for clarifications of things that they assert? Because it’s easier to change the subject?
And back to the questions that I started with but no-one wants to respond to:
A) Why specifically does Lindzen not want to use the more up-to-date corrected data?
B) Are sea levels going, up, down or staying the same. And if they have been and are changing, then what is causing them to do so? (To me, the data clearly shows that they are rising, and that the rise has accelerated. The scientists actively conducting research and gathering data say that the observed rise is primarily due to warming which cause thermal expansion of the ocean, and to due glacial melt. I accept this as a sensible conclusion.)
Another one into the mix: Is there any limit to how high ant-AGW proponents think CO2 concentrations could safely go? 1000ppm? 2000ppm? 5000ppm?
Do you think that it can never have any effect?
Oops, I mistakenly pasted in my entire record of posts (I write into a text file before copying across).
In the previous post, please remove everything above
————————
GGeorge E. Smith:
I’m not a physicist.
(And while you are at it, can you correct the double G in GGeorges.)
Or just delete it and let me know so I can repost.
Thanks
Reply: Done. Just this once. ~ charles the moderator.
The official rate of sea level rise has just been downgraded from 3.3mm per year to 3.2mm per year.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
Must be all that rampant global warming that is accelerating faster than the models predicted.
Accelerated yes (i.e. changed) – but perhaps the sign of the acceleration (as opposed to feedback) (+ve/-ve) is in the wrong direction (once again…)
Craig Allen (18:18:21) :
…
And back to the questions that I started with but no-one wants to respond to:
A) Why specifically does Lindzen not want to use the more up-to-date corrected data?
B) Are sea levels going, up, down or staying the same. And if they have been and are changing, then what is causing them to do so? (To me, the data clearly shows that they are rising, and that the rise has accelerated. The scientists actively conducting research and gathering data say that the observed rise is primarily due to warming which cause thermal expansion of the ocean, and to due glacial melt. I accept this as a sensible conclusion.)
WRT Point B) Above – The official rate of sea level rise has just been downgraded from 3.3mm per year to 3.2mm per year.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
WRT Point A) Above – On using up to date data – you assert that sea level is accelerating. Pot – please meet Kettle.
BTW 1: The site http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg has for some time held a graph that rated sea level rise at 3.3mm per year.
BTW 2: Lot’s of fully official data to debunk the rapid sea level rise notion is at http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/search/label/Greatest%20Lie%20Ever%20Told%3F
Craig Allen:
You can stop right there.
This is just MHO, but there is so much misinformation in your post @18:18:21 that it’s pointless to refute all of it — and it’s all been refuted plenty of times here in the past.
Suffice it to say that this site is run by a meteorologist, and this article was written by the climatologist who heads M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department. Should we listen to these two gentlemen — or to a clown like Eli Rabbet?? Please. It’s no contest.
The entire AGW/CO2 hypothesis boils down to this question: will an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide cause runaway global warming?
The real world answer is: No.
Keep in mind for a change that skeptics need not prove anything. The burden is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show that their [repeatedly falsified] AGW/CO2 hypothesis explains reality better than the long accepted theory of natural climate variability. The AGW contingent has completely failed at this, according to the Scientific Method. No AGW argument has ever falsified natural climate variability, but they still keep digging their hole deeper.
Since alarmists have failed to make their case hold water, they always fall back on computer models — which, as you admit above, are incapable of predicting the climate. Models cannot even predict yesterday’s climate, when they have input all available past climate data at their disposal.
Climate models are always inaccurate. Not a single one of them predicted this N.H. winter’s temperature extremes. All they are good for is generating grant money. But all two dozen ± supercomputer models have failed to falsify natural climate variability — a central requirement of the Scientific Method. In other words, they fail at being scientific. They are just a tool for obtaining grant money; the only thing they are good at.
WUWT is this year’s “Best Science” site, and deservedly so — while Eli Rabbet’s propaganda site didn’t even qualify for the finals. Why waste your time with a loser?
There’s a good reason Rabbet’s Run failed to qualify: The bunny’s site is simply a partisan political site; he has already made up his mind, and all the facts in the world will never change it. His mind is closed tight.
You are much, much better off seeking the truth from the meteorologists, climatologists, physicists and many others here who were educated in related sciences, rather than drinking propaganda from a wannabe bunny, who is only able to keep his job because of tenure. And as you can see from the link, he certainly appears to be grossly unqualified to teach.
Smokey,
I don’t try to put words in your mouth. Don’t try to put words in mine.
Weather is not climate.
If you are unwilling to try to understand the nature and purpose of models, “models have failed, are just ways of generating money blah blah blah” then what is the point of discussing them with you.
Let me repeat. Every significant realm of science and engineering uses models. Models are useful and in fact essential tools in all fields of science.
You keep saying things like “But all two dozen ± supercomputer models have failed to falsify natural climate variability — a central requirement of the Scientific Method.” For a strawman to be useful. It at least has to make sense.
The comedian Stephen Colbert managed to get his audience to win the vote on getting the latest Space station mudule names after him. Doesn’t make him a astronaught. Science is not a popularity contest.
Eli Rabbit presents rational discussion. He partisan to careful thought and meaningful discourse. He is certainly not always going to be right, but at least he honestly explains his reasoning. By dissing people just because you don’t like their well thought out conclusions, and then providing nothing meaningful in return you reveal a great deal about yourself.
I note that you continue to be unwilling to engage in any actual substantive discussion of any thing I have raised.
Please give me some useful information/reasoning to get to grips with. How exactly has the “AGW/CO2 hypothesis” been disproved?
Craig Allen (18:22:15) :
5) Lets flip the question about whether CO2 will cause warming. Can you come up with a reason why it won’t? I’m not a physicist, but the basic explanation of why it will makes perfect sense to me. I intend to use the same phenomenon to keep myself warm tonight, namely throwing over a blanket that will intercept my heat loss and reflect it back to me.
Allow me the liberty to narrow the question to, “Can you show me a reason that an INCREASE in CO2 won’t lead to an INCREASE in temperature?” Given that, I can — or at least show that the increase will be very small. The key is this chart:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
If you look at the important band for CO2’s role in global warming (~15-20 micro-meters) you can see that it’s already pretty much blocked. If CO2 doubled, only the left fringe of that band (where the absorption is <100% now) would be changed. Most relevant frequencies are either already 100% blocked or not affected by CO2 anyway.
This is why, without some positive feedback mechanism, the temperature sensitivity to CO2 is tiny. The catastrophic AGW theory depends on a very large multiplier due to positive feedback. In fact, if that positive feedback is strong enough, then we could reach a tipping point where we wouldn’t need any more CO2, the feedback alone would take over and temperatures would shoot up without limit (until some other mechanism came into play at a higher temperature.) This scenario is getting a lot of play in the media right now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1
Depending on which data set you use, Dr. Lindzen’s analysis either shows a negative feedback, or no feedback. In either case, AGW isn’t catastrophic.
Craig Allen:
*sigh* OK, one more time:
It is not the duty or the responsibility of those skeptical of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis to disprove anything. It is those promoting a new hypothesis who must do the convincing — not those questioning it. Unless you can get your head around that basic fact, there’s nothing to discuss.
The Scientific Method is based on falsifiability. That means that any new hypothesis proposed [such as AGW/CO2] must, first, be falsifiable. Second, those putting forth the hypothesis must transparently provide the full, raw and adjusted data and methodologies used to arrive at the hypothesis, which must be validated by other scientists who were not in the original loop.
None of those requirements have been met by the purveyors of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis. So it doesn’t really even rise to the level of a hypothesis. At this point it’s just a conjecture.
Furthermore, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis must be able to explain reality better than what it is intended to replace; in this case the long-standing theory of natural climate variability. Predictability is involved at this step. Natural climate variability predicts the general parameters of a climate cycling around a trend line. AGW/CO2 predicts climate catastrophe resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which will lead to runaway global warming at some vaguely defined “tipping point.” The planet itself is falsifying CO2’s role click
Here, this is what really happened with the AGW/CO2 “hypothesis”: click
If you want to believe in runaway globaloney, that’s your prerogative. But don’t confuse it with real science. For more information on the shenanigans behind the corrupted climate peer-review process, read the Wegman Report to Congress.
Here is an excellent summary of what’s behind these shenanigans: click
There’s some ‘useful information’, as you requested. It’s all about the money, Craig. If it was about the science, the AGW scoundrels you’re listening to would be happy to publicly archive their data and algorithms. Instead, they run and hide whenever someone asks. That should tell you all you need to know about the AGW/CO2 scam, and the people behind it.
We clearly have a polarised debate between those who are convinced of the AGW CO2 hypothesis, and those who are sceptical. A question that I haven’t seen addressed that I think would be very interesting is “is there are relationship between the views of those supporting the AGW CO2 hypothesis and their funding sources (viz grants primarily from government)”. It has been observed that many, if not most, of the sceptics are older retired guys who, by definition, are not grant recipients.
My guess is that the AGW CO2 enthusiasts will be demonstrated to be mostly drawing their paychecks from grants funded by governments, whereas the sceptical views are coming from those who are not grant recipients.
I don’t know how such a survey could be done, but it sure would be interesting. BTW, maybe I am wrong! If the survey results show that, I would happily concede.
Obviously global cooling would be more catastrophic than global warming. The millions of people displaced by GW would easily be accommodated in a defrosted Siberia, Alaska, or Greenland. However the Global warming industry is more than just jobs-for-scientists supporting a theory-of-the-day. It’s more about where we go from here as a technological world culture. It’s not about global warming or cooling as much as global economics. Oil will run out one day, as will coal. Our present record world population is supported by the earth’s diminishing energy capital. When it runs out, so do billions of people. We need to balance the world’s energy books into sustainability, because energy = food supply+distribution. Global warming is not the main agenda; it’s about planning for a shrinking supply to meet an increasing demand; a shrinking horse trying to pull an ever larger cart. Global warming panic is comparable to George Orwell’s 1984, where the population believed in a non-existent space war, in order to create a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good. It’s socio-psychology, hence the politicization of the GW issue.
It’s “end justifies the means” reasoning, which I have grave reservations about. If AGW is shown to be not-the-case, then the fuel austerity message goes out the window with it. Politicians of course always assume you can fool most of the people most of the time, but what is needed here and now is an honest message. Politicians must bite the bullet rather than lie through their teeth. The truth is, no-one knows about AGW, but proceeding with caution is sensible. Planning to avoid energy shortfalls is absolutely vital.
Interesting that GM and other producers of Yank tank guzzlers are near bankruptcy. A sensible first step would be limiting the size of private motor car engines, except where a genuine need was shown. (farmers, families of ten, etc.) I predict this will happen in the next six years. Now get-on-yer- bikes and do some multi-disciplinary science instead of bickering about what constitutes a positive or negative feedback in climate science.
Cheers, if that’s possible.
Rex
I suggest you read this terrific discussion of ‘peak oil’ (and ‘peak’ everything else) from a regular contributor to this blog, E. M. Smith, here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
Bottom line: We’re not going to run out of energy or raw materials.
Gad! If it ain’t the madcap global warm-mongers, it’s the fear-mongering head-in-the-sands ‘sustainability’ folks. Watch out guys, they’re coming for your muscle cars! Instead of the cool new Camaro, here’s what Obama and G(overnment) M(otors) are offering for our cruisin’ future:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906731177395605.html
/Mr Lynn
That there has been some warming since the Little Ice Age, and that CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm (still a trace amount) does not demonstrate that one caused the other. As is oft repeated, “Correlation is not causation.” Indeed, the predictions by ‘physicists’ have failed for the last decade.
Even a cursory reading of today’s sea-level thread,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/#more-6827
makes it clear that ‘the data’ is anything but clear. Indeed, AJStrata’s comment on the satellite data was stunning:
Interesting hypothesis. That warming oceans would release CO2 is not in dispute, but whether the CO2 would affect climate beyond a certain saturation point is in dispute, and the effect of increased evaporation of H2O (the more potent GHG) from the warming ocean is even more problematic, as it forms cooling clouds.
From the Comments thread in your first RealClimate link, it appears that the principle criticism of the discovery of the missing hot spot is the quality of the data vis-a-vis the variability of the models’ output (not dissimilar from the issue here with Prof. Lindzen’s claims). Obviously if the data are too ‘noisy’ (like global atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures?) we should hesitate to draw conclusions. But if the data are too noisy to falsify model predictions, they are also too noisy to confirm them. My inclination is to go with observation, unless the data are just plain crappy (like that from the weather stations Anthony has been studying, and on which the whole edifice of ‘global warming’ has been erected?).
Well, there are several possibilities: the fact that CO2 is a trace gas, comprising only .3% of the Earth’s atmosphere; that water vapor forms clouds and blocks sunlight; that CO2 absorption of infrared drops off quicly; that CO2 levels have been much higher in the geologic past without causing temperature to run away catastrophically; and that anthropogenic CO2 is only 3% of the .03% in the atmosphere, which suggests that its effect would be trivial to nonexistent.
All of which have been discussed here by experts. Listen to them.
/Mr Lynn
Smokey (14:59:22) :
“It is those promoting a new hypothesis who must do the convincing”
Or, as Carl Sagan* put it: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
*After Marcello Truzzi – I know.
Mr Lynn,
The fact of the matter is that the account of how the climate work which I get from scientists conducting active research in the field if coherrent. The account that I get from the anti-AGW grows is endlessly contradictory. The scientific argument is constrained by the requirement that it all make sense and does not contradict itself. The anti-AGW “experts”, as amply demonstrated throughout this website, clearly do not feel constrained in this manner. They are happy to throw up all manner of objections, even if their objections in one rhetorical argument contradict the logic of their objections in another. And I am stunned by the frequency with which people here present data as support for their arguments, that clearly contradicts what they have said!
Mr Lynn, I would be very pleased if some enterprising Ant-AGW proponent would set about documenting exactly what it is that you all believe, identifying and resolving the myriad of contradictions.
As for the consensus among scientists on how greenhouse gasses affect the atmosphere this set of pages at NASA is a readable summary for the non-scientist.
Please, please, please could some one produce something this coherent, which presents the anti-AGW point of view.
I mean you can’t even decide whether sea levels are rising or not, and what the cause is if they are, or for that matter why it slowed to a near standstill a few thousand years ago and then started to rise again. And why are people so keen on making links to plots that clearly contradict what they believe that it has done or is doing?
As for your bogus trace gas argument Mt Lynn:
The Atmosphere has not been over about 280ppm for 100,000 years, and not over about 300ppm for many hundreds of thousand years (see here. That is a 35% increase since the dawn of the industrial ages. C02 accounts for at least 9% of the infrared adsorption in the atmosphere as explained herehere. And given our accelerating rates of emissions, we may be heading for over 1000ppm by the year 2100.
Mr Lynn, the percentage that a gas accounts for by weight or volume gives you almost no information about it’s importance. For example, try breathing air containing a tiny percentage by weight of cyanide. Or for that matter consider how little sunburn screen you need to apply compared to the total weight of atmosphere that sits above your body as you bask on the beach.
I repeat, how could this ramping up of CO2 concentrations not have a significant affect on the temperature of the atmosphere?
I note that 9% is way higher a change than the variation in irradiance we see over the course of the solar cycle.
And back to the topic of this article. Why is Lindzen using the old data?
Anthony,
Apparently from your comments Dr. Lindzen has not bothered to tell you what his concerns with the data are, although he has had plenty of time to do so if he choose. Do you care what these reasons are? In any case, in order to be honest with your readers, he is obligated to state in his article that he is using data that has been updated and he has decided not to use the current data. The average person reading this post in your blog would think he is using a data set the the scientists who measured still support. This is not the case. The scientists who made the measurements say the data Dr. Lindzen uses are incorrect and should not be used. Nowhere in your blog does Dr. Lindzen state this or give any reason for using data that has been withdrawn. You claim that you have a much higher standard for data. Put your claim in place here and retract the article or put a much stronger warning of deceptive use of data on the article– a much stronger red flag at the start would be a start.
Mike Sweet
Craig Allen (01:55:09) :
I agree with you in that the objections are scattered and sometimes incoherent. Heck, some of the AGW skeptics are uneducated and their objections are silly. But there can be multiple disproofs of a theory and there are more than one of this theory. Frankly, my favorite counter-argument is that warmer is better. The growing season will be longer; energy bills will be lower; life flourishes in warmer climates. Al Gore has had to back down on his silly claim that hurricanes would be worse, since the second law of thermodynamics makes the simplistic argument go the other way. (Note: the truth isn’t simplistic anyway, but Gore made his argument in that realm so the counter-argument belongs there.)
There are important direct arguments against the AGW theory and on April 6th, I tried to lay out one of them for you.
I repeat, how could this ramping up of CO2 concentrations not have a significant affect on the temperature of the atmosphere?
Please see my earlier post (about 8 posts up from here), which is directly aimed at this question. However, since posting it, I have noticed that my tipping point link might be a bit off topic. I just picked the first link off a google search for “global warming tipping point.” The search has zillions of results — which, by itself, makes that point.
Lastly, let me commend your patience is persisting with this dialogue. I tried going to a blog “on the other side” (Greenfyre) and found them insufferable. I think we are better (personal attacks are not the norm here) but I’m sure this has not been easy.
I appreciate that parsimony and coherence is of major importance in scientific explanation (Occam’s Razor); look how Newton encompassed a huge variety of events under a few laws. But in the zeal for parsimony there lurks the danger of oversimplification.
Contrary to the claims of the AGW movement (encompassing not just scientific proponents of the hypothesis, but the lay advocates from politics and ‘environmentalism’ and the media), the Earth’s climate is by all objective accounts an enormously complex phenomenon, the result of multifold inputs and factors at various levels of scale, from very local to solar-system-wide. To call the climate a ‘system’ might be a stretch, because it appears so chaotic.
I suspect that most climatologists of whatever AGW persuasion would admit this. Some just seem to think that it is possible to reduce this complexity to a few basic assumptions and principles embodied in computer models. Others object that these models incorporate faulty assumptions, leave out important elements, including many we don’t understand at all, and operate with flawed and unreliable data.
This type of critique inevitably will be messy, inelegant, even ‘incoherent’, because it comes from multiple directions, often focusing on observational minutiae. But that’s an essential part of the scientific enterprise. It’s the failure of hypotheses, theories, and paradigms to account for increasingly anomalous evidence that eventually leads to their falsification and replacement.
The Realists are engaged in exactly this kind of enterprise, spurred by appalling arrogance of the Alarmists in the AGW movement who, not only convinced that they have solved the mysteries of the chaotic climate ‘system’, are engaged in political action to remediate a predicted consequence of their models (AGW), even while it is increasingly evident to many that these predictions are unwarranted and invalid.
This attempt by AGW proponents to establish a scientific orthodoxy and to silence and disparage any dissent is contrary to whole idea of scientific inquiry. Maybe it will turn out that the reductionist ‘coherent’ models of the AGW proponents are essentially correct. But in the minds of many, that conclusion is entirely premature. One way of demonstrating that is to point to the inherent complexity of, and apparent contradictions in hypotheses about, the Earth’s turbulent climate.
/Mr Lynn
Craig Allen: You say: “The fact of the matter is that the account of how the climate work which I get from scientists conducting active research in the field if coherrent.”
It might help your cause if you took the time to ensure that your sentences are coherent. I think that you meant to say “The fact of the matter is that the account of how the climate works which I get from scientists conducting active research in the field is coherent”.
strike