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.
The Climate Modelers Dichotomy:
“yes we have every confidence in our climate models. They are 100% correct.”
next breath
“can we have $50 million please for a new Supa Dupa Computa. Only a new computer will give us accurate the results we need”
They always want it both ways.
@Michael,
thanks for that link about Professor Plimer. I would love to read his book.
Two things struck me. The most obvious is Professor Plimer himself, who appears to be a very eminent scientist (a geologist who is not directly a part of that pseudo-science known as climate science). I can only say that I agree with him 120% And, yes, AGW and the extreme environmentalism that underpins it does powerfully remind me of fundamentalist religion.
The other thing that struck me was the attitude of the reporter who wrote this piece. From his words it’s clear he has supported AGW in the past, but this report takes Professor Plimer’s views very seriously. It’s almost as if this reporter was questioning his own long-held religious beliefs….
Chris
Anyone who thinks that the data should conform to the models has no business in any scientific or engineering position. Models must conform to the data because the data represents the reality that we are trying to model in the first place. This is a fundamental point. When you alter data to fit a model, that data is then meaningless.
Data corrections are a separate issue. As Lindzen says, nobody ever believes the data are perfect but they mostly follow normal error distributions and that’s also usually the way to spot any biases or drifts. Data always erring in one direction defies reality. That’s why it is implausible.
I’ve not seen any discipline other than climate science where models were treated with less suspicion than the data. That is just unscientific cognitive dissonance.
Interesting observation Jared. Did you notice however, that the Magnolia’s are not yet in bloom? Most typical Master’s Tournaments, they show you a trip down the infamous Magnolia Lane that leads to the clubhouse. I did not see much of that this year and I suspect because without the flowers in bloom, it looks pretty dull.
My family and I went to the NASCAR Pepsi 300 at the Nashville Super Speedway on Saturday and about froze our rear-ends off, and we were wearing jackets and warm clothing! Quite a slow start to summer this year it seems.
“Jared (11:41:24) :
Was watching the Masters this weekend (golf) and noticed how all the trees are green in Georgia right now. Well I live in Ohio, all are trees are bare right now.”
From what I could see all the trees are coniferous (evergreens)
Now ‘Georgia On My Mind’ comes to mind when Ray sings Hoagey’s lines
“A song of you
Comes as sweet and clear as moonlight through the pines”
Deciduous trees here in overcast London still bare.
meanwhile, we are going on the 37th consecutive spotless day which is tied with the 13th longest spotless streak in recorded history.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Period
10 more days or so of this and it may start to get someone’s attention!
(thanks Jorge!)
Take the adjustments out of the data and where does that leave us — with little or no warming?
Ranking mutual funds according to their carbon footprint! I suppose the next thing to come after this will be tax penalties:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_bi_ge/mutual_funds_climate
Further meanwhile, from the National Weather Service, California is freezing again…
“…FREEZE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 3 AM TO 9 AM PDT TUESDAY…
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN EUREKA HAS ISSUED A FREEZE
WARNING…WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 3 AM TO 9 AM PDT TUESDAY.
A COLD AIRMASS MOVING INTO NORTHWEST CALIFORNIA IN THE WAKE OF A
COLD FRONT ALONG WITH CLEARING SKIES TONIGHT WILL ALLOW FOR
WIDESPREAD FREEZING TEMPERATURES EARLY TUESDAY MORNING. ANOTHER
ROUND OF FREEZING TEMPERATURES IS EXPECTED WEDNESDAY MORNING.”
Wonder if the models predicted this? Hmmmm?????
Marcus @12:19:36
The models are just models. Their widespread use and the widely held belief in them does not invalidate data, neither does it create “data”. It is the other way around. Data invalidates models.
CO2science.org has a great data base on the effect of CO2 on plants .
Thanks Michael for this excellent Palmer’s article. I’ve written on the same issues since 2005; on this forum also.
We were taught that Earth’s climate always changes; it’s not static. Climate changes are quite normal into the evolution of our planet.
We were taught that the variations of temperature within the rank -3 to 3 °C (∆T = 6 °C) are expected in this epoch, and that those changes mean opportunities for the evolution of species. To think that the species must remain confined in a fixed unchanged space, without migrating, is foolish and no scientific. Biological communities have always moved, extended, drained, extinguished, recovered, etc.; this has a name, natural succesion.
The levels of the sea have always been fluctuating; three millimeters per year are nothing if we compare them with the large continental extensions that have been covered by the seas at other not so far epochs. Climate always changes. Those AGW people think the Earth is static; they don’t consider evolution. They love ice, but ice kills.
Phil.,
My challenge was: “If anyone can prove those statements are wrong [that CO2 is beneficial, not harmful], please do so. I’m interested. Heck, forget the proof. Strong, verifiable evidence is good enough.”
In your response, you came up with one citation. What did it say? It said that if CO2 makes the oceans more acidic, then juvenile lobsters might have a shorter carapace length. From your link:
“Thus despite there being no observed effect on survival, carapace length, or zoeal progression, OA related (indirect) disruption of calcification and carapace mass might still adversely affect the competitive fitness and recruitment success of larval lobsters.”
If that’s your answer to my challenge, OK. But I’d like to ask a question: should we demolish the entire technological basis of modern society, and jack taxes way, way up — in order to protect the carapace length of juvenile lobsters? All based on the possibility that carapace mass “might” affect the ability of baby lobsters to compete with each other?
I don’t think the putative effect on lobster larvae rises to the level of a credible response.
Smokey (09:13:30):
@Phil.
In your response, you came up with one citation. What did it say? It said that if CO2 makes the oceans more acidic, then juvenile lobsters might have a shorter carapace length.
That’s contemplated into paleobiology. When the concentration of calcium carbonates in Sea water diminishes, an adaptive change takes place on size; “baby” and adult lobsters will be shorter and their carapace (exoskeleton) density won’t change. It has been observed in fossil records. Lobsters won’t disappear; they just will be shorter.
Ted Clayton: RE: feedback. Link to: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
and scroll down a ways
Phil. (20:10:47),
“ocean acidification” (aka, OA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htm
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/03/29/experts-say-ocean-acidification-is-a-planet-changer/
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
… etc.
Wow! Thanks!
For all you off topic horticulturists. 🙂
Here is an interesting study. It says in part:-
The adjustment of plant water budgets played an important role in several responses observed in the experiment. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 can cause plants to partially close leaf pores (stomata) through which CO2 enters leaves for photosynthesis and water vapor escapes to the atmosphere. This partial closing of the stomata under elevated CO2 can allow the plants to acquire more CO2 with less water loss. Lower plant water loss (higher water use efficiency) can result in increased soil moisture.
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/JRGCE/chamber.html
Larry Sheldon (11:42:52) : It seems odd to this non-scientist (except in a philosophical sense) that the “corrections are always in the same directions.
Actually they are not always in the same direction, Larry. Often the older temperature data is made cooler so that the rate of temperature increase is made steeper and more alarming. Ain’t climate science great?
Ted Clayton (10:26:15) :
All your links are full of “may” , “might” and “research”.
Research is good, but it means that nothing much is known.
Also people so much worried about the anthropogenic CO2 ( that according to AGW theory stays in the atmosphere for centuries) should have another look at the numbers in the carbon cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
There are 750 GigaTonsCarbon naturally in the atmosphere, and the fossil burning adds another 5.5 , i.e. 0.7%. Which according to AGW stays there for centuries.
Whats the fuss? That is why everything is full of “mays” and “mights”.
Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life?
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
jack mosevich (09:53:40),
“When is Positive Feedback Really Negative Feedback?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/when-is-positive-feedback-really-negative-feedback/
If you know electronics, electrical power, steam plants, basic physics, etc, and are having a hard time with climate-feedback discussions – read this post! 😉
Thanks!
MartinGAtkins (10:44:49):
From the article you suggested:
This partial closing of the stomata under elevated CO2 can allow the plants to acquire more CO2 with less water loss. Lower plant water loss (higher water use efficiency) can result in increased soil moisture.
C4 plants rely on a physiological adaptation: Hatch and Slack cycle. It’s a cellular metabolic cooperation mechanism which allows them to survive without atmospheric CO2 making use of the CO2 dissolved in the tissue liquids through the enzyme phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase, which works quite well under low concentrations of tissue CO2, especially when plants are forced to close their stomata for avoiding loss of water. On the other hand, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is low, those plants release the CO2 fixed in malate through decarboxylation in the perivascular bundle sheet cells. Fortunately, plants are not rocks.
Re : Warwick Hughes scorecard
Can anybody reconcile with this ?
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf
Frederick Michael (15:01:26) : All humans tend to fiddle with the analysis until they get the result that want. I am as guilty of this as anyone.
I certainly hope you are not designing any bridges, Frederick.
sorry – basically this was the conclusion
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.