This QOTW is from MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, from his response to critics on the WUWT post: Lindzen on negative climate feedbacks
…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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Giss is a perfect example of this. Lindzen has addressed the critics at RC by pointing out that he doesn’t believe in the ‘corrected’ datasets from his last post here. RC failed completely in their response instead calling him an advocate.
I’m starting to think the authors of the recent Antarctic paper suffered from the same problems. Every time I change anything in the reconstructions the trend is reduced. It’s like they maximized the trend with bad math. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but now I’ve done two antarctic temperature reconstructions of my own, in both cases we have flat or cooling trends for the last 40 years. I’m new to AGW in the last year but everything I’ve looked at stinks to high heaven.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/closest-station-antarctic-reconstruction/
Think about how ridiculous that statement is, Lamont… Basically you’re saying that the errors should always be opposite the direction of your hypothesis if your hypothesis is correct. This is circular logic of the worst kind – you’re using the hypothesis to drive the errors, as if they knew a priori what it was.
Why not make an attempt to view the situation from “I don’t know if the models are right or wrong, I’ll examine the data to find out.” Then, if the data do not support the models, then maybe they are not correct?
Mark
Oh, alright. I was voting for one of the juicier (may all alarmists burn in hell) quotes.
😉
Seriously. May reasoned, honest, courageous men like Dr. Lindzen help lead us out of this wilderness.
Charles Krauthammer on Freeman Dyson’s view of Climate Change today on Inside Washington.
When you impress Krauthammer, you’ve scored. Big Time.
This guy paddles his own boat with great authority.
And, according to Krauthammer, the debate is NOT settled.
“We have had Climate Change since the 1st creatures crawled out of the slime.”
Oh, yeah!
🙂
The worst correction is what they have done to the basic temperature record.
The basic trend for the US has been adjusted upwards by 0.425C.
We can’t quite figure out what the total corrections are for the global temperature series but it seems to be higher than the US adjustments.
So let’s say the adjustments were 0.3C on the high side. That would put 2009’s temperatures to date only about 0.3C warmer than the cool 1880s.
Just Want Truth… (13:06:08). Thanks for the Zichichi quote.
When original data is remodeled agressively to appear as genuine to support the Models’ predestined output, it’s no longer a debate. When the original data is replaced with the remodeled data to appear as ‘genuine original’, it’s no longer a model, it’s a Global Data Altering Machine.
G-CRAP fills it’s tank from the G-DAM reservoir.
The water is not safe to drink.
In Richard Lindzens opening talk at the conference last month he said that just because you don’t believe AGW it doesn’t necessarily mean you are a good scientist. And if you do believe AGW it doesn’t necessarily mean you are a bad scientist.
It seems that Richard Lindzen is trying to heal some of the fracture between the sides, the enmity. I’m sure there are men and women from both sides who, under other circumstances, would be friends.
And I want to point out that I respect Anthony for his reaching out a hand of friendship to Walt Meier in the past. It’s a good example for me to learn from.
obviuosly, corrections are driven by model output and not a scientific approach.
when a difference occurs, many stones are turned around to explain the difference (only) from the data side.
errors in the models or data errors that would possibly increase the difference are neglected.
Lamont:
How are the models proven to be correct, or otherwise, other than by comparing them with the data? Adjusting the data to agree with the models proves exactly nothing.
Unless, of course, the models are assumed a priori to be correct. And that would be an extremely dangerous assumption to make.
Marcus (12:19:36),
You seemed to be doing passingly well with the contrarian role, until indulging the “bitter” swipe.
You should continue to hone your skill & technique: there is a need for more & better contrarians. Blogs that are full of bobble-heads are far less useful & interesting than those that host both sides of the debate. Likewise, bloggers who weight in only with the like-minded are missing the better part their training.
See, once you stoop to the personalization gambit, then it just becomes an exercise in rancor. (There are those, of course, who do this as their goal, but they’re of no account.)
The science-oriented folks I enjoy most are those who readily admit that in most vibrant, still-unsettled science-fields, one can adopt practically any position he likes, and then pick papers, theories, workers, labs etc to support that position. “Life On Mars” is a field that compares well with “Climate Change” in this way. One can go Yes, No, Maybe, Used To Was, or whatever … and put together a supportive case.
What warm/green/liberal blogs do you frequent, Marcus? Do you see folks from here, there? Do they mind their manners, or not? I was doing well on Grist(mill), but now they’ve gone and gobbed-up the site, for blogging (still good for News & Views, tho).
I am sure Anthony would agree, that to have more on-topic Warms & Greens here on WUWT would be a good thing. The contrarian role is not a challenge that every blogger can pull off well, though, that’s true. 😉
=====
I am flabbergasted to watch well-known & established scientists & academics argue that there are no negative feedbacks in the climate-dynamic; that all feedback paths are positive.
I don’t believe there is any such thing as a dynamic system that is not under the influence of a combination of both forms of modulation. If that were not the case with our climate, Earth would have become either a permanent snowball, or Venus II, eons ago. Without an interplay between negative & positive feedback, with only positive or only negative, any system that can move at all will slam into one peg or the other, and stay there.
The workable question is, ‘How is the balance between/among the various feedback components of our climate – plus & minus – altered by changing/shifting conditions’?
All humans tend to fiddle with the analysis until they get the result that want. I am as guilty of this as anyone. If not for the critics in the fearless crowd, the models would be lost.
The great crime of the AGW gang is their suppression of this criticism.
Just Want Truth… (14:44:46) :
In Richard Lindzens opening talk at the conference last month he said that just because you don’t believe AGW it doesn’t necessarily mean you are a good scientist. And if you do believe AGW it doesn’t necessarily mean you are a bad scientist.
Actually, I’d take this as a sort of insult, though subtle.
Mark
O.T.
Just had a thought, has anyone every done a study on global sea rise due to land reclaimation from the sea? some of which is now easily viewable from space,………?
One of the criticisms of Prof Lindzen’s pointed the later corrections to the data, correcting for orbital decay. Fair enough; that happens. However, after the corrections, the resultant data still showed evidence of negative feedback.
Then something strange happened. The original authors re-corrected the corrected data, and guess what–the data now shows no evidence of negative feedback. Now, I wonder, what was the need for the second correction? Did they not know how much the orbit decayed, or what the actual field of view of the instrument was when they did the first correction? Why not? Did they just rush and do a sloppy job? What’s the rush?
Or did they discover the corrected data still supported the other side, and so decide to stack the uncertainties to squeeze the data to fit the expectation? The corrections are still plausible (still within the uncertainty of the raw data) but the data now fits the expectation.
In elections, the only totally fair vote count is the first one. During the recounts, the counters know how many more votes their guy needs to win. In data correction, it’s only during the re-calibrations you know how much your data needs to move to support your expectation. Makes it very hard to be objective, no matter how much you want to get it right.
Models clearly do not work, but this doesnt slow down the modelers one bit. Just look at their predictions about a vigourous solar cycle 24, which is so far is almost non existant.
None of their predictions have come true. If the sun stays this way, we are headed for one very cold earth, but, even this wont slow the alarmists down, they just say “think how cold it would be if there wasnt any global warming!”
or “this just gives us more time to prepare for the coming warming in 20 years”.
M. Carpenter (15:15:43) :
The sea level rise due to land reclamation is dwarfed by the sea level fall due to building dams that sequester water in artificial lakes and reservoirs. And even that isn’t significant.
Gotta be careful with them there rancors…
Ted Clayton,
There is no need to create a “balance” between positive and negative feedback. A net positive feedback implies that there is an internal amplification of an external stimulus leading to a runaway response to the stimulus. In case of the climate, assumption of net positive feedback in the climate system – regardless of the cause of the heating – will lead to a runaway temperature increase. This is clearly contradicted by millions of years of climate history. Negative feedback, however does not imply cooling. It is merely an attenuation or dampening of the external stimulus. You can have – in fact we do have – rising temperatures when the dominant feedback is negative. Indeed, the lack of instability in the climate system implies a dominant negative feedback, but that did not prevent temperatures from rising, when the conditions were right for it.
Smokey: Thanks for the link to the Warwick Hughes model-scorecard. However, there’s a typo in the first line of the first of the “unscored” items. There’s no link in the scorecard document for me to contact the author, so I hope you (or someone here) will do so. The erroneous line reads:
“Urban heat islands do have a significant effect on observed temperature trends (e.g., Peterson, 1999).”
There should be a “not” after the “do”
Nice heartwarming quote. I’d far rather trust an expert who has been through the mill like Lindzen has, who’s still saying the same thing even in the face of taunts.
ROTFL Robert Bateman : Global Climate Rapid Alteration Program (G-CRAP)…
When the original data is replaced with the remodeled data to appear as ‘genuine original’, it’s no longer a model, it’s a Global Data Altering Machine.
G-CRAP fills it’s tank from the G-DAM reservoir.
The water is not safe to drink.
I have seen quite a number of cases where scientists used to be proponents of AGW but have changed their position (publicly) after examining the opposing evidence. Does anyone here know of any case where a scientist has started out in the skeptic camp and changed over to the alarmist viewpoint?
Marcus
“Having said that, there are actually plenty of times that models have been corrected and changed.”
In the real scientific world there are only two sorts of models.
1) very simple models that give very good approximations to reality and that contain only very few operators. Such equations give answers on the macroscale.
2) very complex models, with many operators, that produce crap.
The fact that climate scientists are still living in the world that enzyme kineticist’s lived in the mid-70’s is shocking. Have you never heard of Kacser and Burns.
For those who would like to get an insight as to how data corrections emerge, please read:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
“Models are not perfect. Data are not perfect. Theory isn’t perfect. We shouldn’t expect them to be. It’s the combination of models, data, and theory that lead to improvements in our science, in our understanding of phenomena.”
It describes a rather different process to the one Richard Lindzen is suggesting.
You, me, we, can know for sure that data was adjusted, nevertheless, it has served its purpose, these are “marketed” all over the world, as realities through newspapers, radios, TV stations. I am saying this because, when casually changing tv channels, a few minutes ago, pops up another show on climate, on how bad CO2 is, etc., sponsored by a known international bank related with carbon shares/credits.
It really doesn´t matter if scientific facts are behind or not , what it is needed is just to resemble scientific. So wait for the next financial “bubble”, the carbon bubble. Buy some shares?