Resisting climate hysteria
by Richard S. Lindzen on Quadrant Online
July 26, 2009
A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
excerpts:
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).
…
Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean.
…
In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.
…
And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.
With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.
Read the complete essay with references at Quadrant Online
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
h/t to Bob Carter
Hooray!!!
Well as I’ve mentioned before, some articles make me want to stand up and cheer. Among climate scientists Richard Lindzen is like the designated driver in a room full of drunks.
WOW! Irrefutable logic and superior reasoning on the highest order.
THIS NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED IN EVERY NEWSPAPER AND SCIENCE JOURNAL ACROSS THE PLANET.
Every person across the globe needs to read.
Anyone who attempts to avoid this, or tries to refute, will make themselves out to be a fool.
All I gotta say is that is, by far, THE the most bulletproof apologia I have ever read.
BRAVO!!
Long live the truth and the scientific method.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
It must be very depressing to be a “real atmospheric scientist” in today’s world of computer models, data manipulators, and politicians.
True on all counts. The problem is that reason and fact have been, and always will be, bent to the wishes of those in power or who want power. Witness the influence of religious beliefs over the centuries, right up to the present day. When confronted with political power, science must serve it’s political masters or cease to exist.
Scientists such as Lindzen cannot win on reason and facts alone. They must present the powerful with more enticing alternatives.
Love reading anything Richard has written… but I have one question (from the photo) …what the heck is “Climate Justice”?
REPLY: See http://www.climatelaw.org/
well – Ocean heat transfer seems as reasonable to me as anything else as a climate change driver but I’d say there is absolutely no chance of convincing any alarmists of it.
“Scientists such as Lindzen cannot win on reason and facts alone. ”
We may be on a cusp in evolution where they can and we will.
CHRIS
The alarmist game can be played both ways. This anonymous email landed on my desk today:
“Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.
‘However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer”
Anthony why on earth do you reprint this rubbish.
REPLY: Well at least I’m capable of publishing. I suppose it is for the same reason you hate PHP. – Anthony
As one wag put it, “But still it cools.”
As already well-stated by others in earlier comments:
This is a truly outstanding piece of writing by Lindzen.
I can only add that I am reminded of a version of what somebody said on one blog or the other recently:
”The publicly expressed wish to ‘help’ humans save themselves from imminent catastrophe, is almost always a front for a hidden agenda of wanting to rule them (and/or tax them, in this case).
Anyway: As long as we have people and organizations like Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, the Heartland Institute, Climate Audit, ICECAP, and (of course) WattsUpWithThat, there is valid reason to hope (as Chris said above) that truth and the objective scientific method will triumph over what has become the intolerant and dogmatic religion of AGW.
Dr Lindzen’s candor is as refreshing as it is observationally consistent.
As for the MODEL-RELIANT Dr Hansen’s latest tantrum in
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090715/james-hansen-climate-tipping-points-and-political-leadership, I’m partial to paraphrasing the WarGames film climax retort,
“General (‘er Dr Hansen), you are listening to a MACHINE. Do the world a favor and don’t act like one!”
“Among climate scientists Richard Lindzen is like the designated driver in a room full of drunks.”
LOL. I think beer just came out of my nose.
Well, that’s all very clear and sensible.
It’ll never catch on.
What I like about Professor Lindzen’s essay is his ability to show what it means to think outside of simple categories: Very warm or cold years should not right away get us thinking of climate trends one way or another. I view this as a very good example of true outside-of-the-box thinking. I guess it exemplifies the best of the scientific method.
“Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.”
Ouch.
[Just a warning to certain alarmists to cover their [snip snips] before reading!}
Magnificent piece, Dr. Lindzen
“General (’er Dr Hansen), you are listening to a MACHINE. Do the world a favor and don’t act like one!”
Point taken, but any machine so dumbass-Simple-Simon stupid that it couldn’t even figure out a way to win a nuclear war wasn’t really worth listening to in the first place.
Couple of nuggest in there
:”The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.” –
California got both knees taken out by Ken Lay’s firm, and has never recovered. To this day, the repeated budget surgery has been non-stop, the slashing and butchery of the state’s infrastrucure is caught in an endless loop.
The patient diagnosis if Cap&Trade is implemented in the West is permanent cripple.
“Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean.”
That’s easy to remember. Thank you Dr. Lindzen.
“Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.”
Nomination for QotW.
The essay is good.
It simply points out the apparent fact that positive feedbacks are out to lunch. But of course we knew all about that, already.
Unfortunately, the general public is relatively innocent regarding the concept and has some larnin’ to do. Let’s hope more of this sort of thing finds its way into the mainstream. (And the recent autumnal summers and ass-freezing winters carry a certain crude logic all their own.)
‘However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer”
Nice idea but not so. Following dates from Wiki:
Gore – 31st March 48
Rodham – 26th October 47 (unless she’s the only famous woman to claim to be older than she is)
Kerry – 11th December 43 (clearly his teeth are younger than the rest of him)
Clinton – 19th August 46
Dean – 17th November 48
Pelosi – 26th March 40
Feinstein – 22nd June 33
Schumer – 23rd November 50
Boxer – 11th November 40
“For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.”
Haste is a common indicator of poor judgement (and immaturity). Poor judgement leads to failure. Failure leads to change. Like climate change, it’s inevitable.
For your entertainment, here’s another version of the argument presented by Dr. Lindzen:
[snip – sorry after watching this, I don’t support such angry video arguments]
Sorry to post off topic (although the comments are all backslapping anyway) but is there a reason you (Anthony) filed a DMCA complaint against Greenman3610’s youtube video “Watts up with Watts”?
From Youtube:
“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Anthony Watts Surfacestations.org”
Surely his video falls under fair use. Relying on the nanny state to attack critics or am I missing something?
REPLY: I don’t care to discuss my reasons here as they are private and unrelated to this discussion. Google agreed that complaint was valid and removed the video. – Anthony
Great article. We need more like that to counter groups such as ecoAmerica. On their website, http://ecoamerica.net/press/media/090520/truths, they have a download to their Climate and Energy ‘Truths’ (I put the quote around ‘truths’) and it is it says how the ecobrigade should speak to the ‘scientifically illerate’.
Some of their dictums:
Stay away from debating weather.
Stay away from debating science or specific policies.
We can successfully and should repeatedly characterize coal as “dirty” and nuclear as “unsafe.”
But my favorite of all is this one (NEW TERM ALERT):
Instead of using ‘global warming’ or ‘climate crisis’, the best new term is “deteriorating atmosphere” or “our deteriorating atmosphere”
(personalizing the term).
I was wondering what ‘climate change’ would morph into! Listen for it from the MSM.
mccall (20:22:33) :
Say what you like about Hansen but he is sticking steadfastly to his gun.
Dr. Lindzen makes so much sense. I have had the good fortune to see two debates between AGW proponents and skeptics in the past few days. In one, Richard Lindzen, Peter Stott, and Michael Crichton shred Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and some woman I had not heard of. When the debate was done, the majority had gone from favoring AGW to favoring sanity.
In the second, John Christy absolutely murderizes Richard Schlesinger. Not by attacking, but by being sane and reasonable. Schlesinger takes the usual AGW approach of “let’s just say it’s settled, and talk about dead polar bears and drowned cities”. Christy is low-key and never demeaning, and just oozes sanity and clearheadedness as he describes how little we really know. By the end of the debate, again the room had gone from believing in AGW to not.
To “FatBigot” (20:53:44). I know truth is precious and false statements should be shown for what they are, but I wish you hadn’t ruined a pleasant delusion.
What I love most about Dr. Lindzen is that he has the courage to wander off the scientific reservation and engage in discussion and debate on cultural issues. If the whole AGW enthusiasm falls apart under it’s own weight in the future, it’s a good bet that Dr. Lindzen will be recognized as the person most responsible for exposing its dubious claims.
The important part of this thread is Richard Lindzen’s essay. Richard came to Melbourne about 1992 and I had the pleasure of meeting him. As I am a teetotaller, he was not in a room full of drunks.
Could not resist the fun followed up by FatBigot (20:53:44) : “Nice idea but not so. Following dates from Wiki:
Gore – 31st March 48
Rodham – 26th October 47 (unless she’s the only famous woman to claim to be older than she is) etc etc.
It shows at least that
(a) if you have not done your research, state that the source is unverified
(b) If you wish to check the facts, don’t believe everything in Wiki. For example, re Hillary, ‘In her autobiography, Living History, Sen. Clinton describes her maternal grandmother as “one of nine children from a family of French Canadian, Scottish and Native American ancestry”. No records have been found to support this claimed Native American ancestry.’ From http://www.wargs.com/political/rodham.html Maybe Indians had different calendars.
(c) Seemingly unrelated comparisons can sometimes be useful, for example Roswell UFOs compared with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It’s all investigative research with a common readership of settled scientists.
I really like Richard Lindzen and appreciate his efforts. However, I wish he would stop insulting the public. It wasn’t the public who started the scare-mongering about climate and it isn’t the public, in general, that propagates it. It is the climate scientists.
Looking at the picture at the top of the thread, is this the first time in history that rent-a-mob has been on the side of the establishment?
Another astute piece of climate change analysis that will never be converted into column inches by the hostile to reasoning, alarmist MSM.
I’ve just Googled ‘Sam Vilain’ and I only got this:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?sam_vilain
You ever get accused of being an oil company shill?
Tom Knudson of the SacBee, who has been reporting the Global Warming beat, found out who the real oil company stooges are, and he printed it in Sunday’s edition. Energy firms help pay for [Calif} state regulators far-flung trips.
He names names. He takes quotes from the guilty, and no prisoners.
This is a game changer of a report, augering a wholesale political climate change in Sacramento.
How are they going to say he’s not a climate scientist?
Someone needs to delete about 1k worth of comments on the tip page.
He’s one of our locals here in NZ. I ran into him the other day when I was bored (Note to self – get a life):
The Standard. Funny how few of these guys seem able to rise above personal attacks and ad homs. And apparently I’m an oil company shill too. Seems I’m in good company.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5916353/Climate-change-helped-the-Incas-build-civilisation.html
Just as well the Incas did not have messrs Gore and Hansen to tell them to fight climate change instead of benefitting from the warming.
I wonder what fate is awaiting Dr Alex Chepstow Lusty. Surely it not politically correct to publish such “denier” propaganda that there could have been such warming and yet the world did not it a “tipping point” from which there was no retreat.
page48 (22:22:57) :
Weather has been a favorite topic of discussion amongst folks since man started talking. It runs along at the level of pure instinct.
This is the 1st time that it has been used as a weapon on us in modern times.
Before that, ancient religions sacrificed to the sun god, etc. in secret rites designed to control us through fear. This whole thing is a throwback.
PolyScience invents new gods to make us tremble.
Not working.
When they are gone, we can safely talk about the weather again, and enjoy it.
Warmists philosophy –
To reduce CO2 forcing we need to increase government forcing.
Common Sense, how refreshing!
FatBigot (20:53:44) :
“Nice idea but not so. ”
Hm, does that mean that the only bona fide Alien on that list is one A. A. Gore jr.?
Now,
if Obama could only read,
but perhaps, someone,
who reads, and likes talking
alone?
79 billion buys a lot of climate hysteria, especially when political and commercial gain is at stake.
Some people however will recognize themselves in the mirror created by Lindzen.
I am talking about those “intelligent ” people in powerful positions who believe they have to join the hoax because of “moral” issues.
“page48 (22:22:57) :
I really like Richard Lindzen and appreciate his efforts. However, I wish he would stop insulting the public. It wasn’t the public who started the scare-mongering about climate and it isn’t the public, in general, that propagates it. It is the climate scientists.”
Unfortunately, I disagree with this. The public is entirely “in the mix”, as very few , if any, actually take the time to investigate any of these claims that are, in fact, leading to a wholesale gutting of our economy and our way of life. The “if Katie Curic says so, it MUST be true!” crowd are what’s allowing this to go on. If the “public” would spend a bit more time investigating what’s going on around them and a little less time trying to figure out if Michael Jackson’s drugs were all legally perscribed, I think we’d be a bit better off.
Ask the normal, average, everyday person in your neighborhood if they believe that global warming is real, and most will say yes.
Ask them if they’re aware that not a single experiment has ever been performed that indicates C02 is responsible, and the tilt light starts lighting up on their forehead.
Ask them if they’re aware that what the famous IPCC actually said was “Well, we can’t find anything else to account for the warming, so it must be C02.” and they just won’t believe you.
It will begin changing when the pocketbooks start emptying, but by then it may well be too late. I can only begin to imagine what it will take to get the global-warming-virus out of our legal system. Likely to be thousands of laws/fees on the federal/state level, who knows how many local ordinances. They’re already in place in many areas.
And don’t forget that a major portion of the budget is to be funded by taxes/fees levied on C02. Admit that it’s not a problem, fees go away?…what programs get cut?…and what politician is going to openly agree that a major portion of the funding for his/her programs is based on a lie?
JimB
I’d like to quote a great saying:
“God is in the details.”
Well done Anthony truth = truth I still have not met any meteorologist who believes in AGW (they are by nature very conservative as they see real data every day!)
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&view=videos#play/all/uploads-all/0/dcxVwEfq4bM
BTW : better remove this fellow ASAP above
Tl1xtor (03:00:29) : I think its porn
@ Mickey Langan (21:27:58) :
I’m familiar with the first debate you mentioned, but not the second. Do you have a link to the John Christy debate? Many thanks,
Chris
*************************************
It’s an excellent piece by Richard Lindzen, but one thing did catch my eye. He said: “Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth….”
I would have agreed with this a year ago, but that was before I heard about the astonishing opinion polls. They show that, in both the UK and US, a healthy majority believe that the warming was natural. A tracking poll shows a consistent trend towards increasing scepticism. Possibly Richard Lindzen wasn’t aware of this. It would appear that the general public have a better idea about climate change than the ‘experts’. And this despite the almost completely one-sided and biased coverage in the media.
If the media started to become more balanced in their coverage then public opinion would start to shift even more. At some point, at least in democratic countries such as the US and UK, climate change will start to move up the agenda – but not in the way the climate scientists and politicians expected. Eventually the public will put two and two together: that climate change is natural, and the world may even start to get colder – and that at the same time our governments are planning to squander trillions of dollars to solve the ‘problem’.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking. But maybe, just maybe, in a few years the situation may have changed beyond recognition so that some measure of sanity prevails. As I said, it’s probably wishful thinking!
Another developing story (really is not.. its only boring ol’ weather) but this was the last “NH ice” post on CA
“Yesterday’s question (‘how long can 2009 keep this pace up’) has been answered today: 2009’s 100K+ run has finally come to a stop.
7/26/09 7244375 -71250”
We “may” be seeing the end on the NH ice melt story as “a cold run” may be starting to kick in due to Solar activity). We saw a cycle 23 region last week and now no spots for 14 days again! We may be in for a real solar minimun = which could be some REAL climate change for a change LOL
COLA is showing again some pretty cool weather across the USA for the next weeks (again it means absolutely nothing in climate terms ie no cooling, no warming, just NORMAL WEATHER)
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html
Tl1xtor (03:00:29) :
MODERATORS!!!
I just sent Climate Justice a little note asking them to get their lawyers on the stick:
It has come to my attention that global temperatures have stalled with CO2 rising and that the head of the IPCC says we will be cooling until 2020. Can’t something be done to get temperatures rising again and to silence the head of the IPCC? Everything we have worked for is in jeopardy if something isn’t done soon.
I also note that India plans to keep building coal fired plants no matter what and that China is not slowing down either. You need to sue those countries until they get on the bandwagon. If something is not done very soon the deniers will be in control everywhere.
==
Heh.
Sam Vilain (20:06:22) :
Anthony why on earth do you reprint this rubbish.
One idiot’s “rubbish” is the thinking person’s treasure.
I don’t know who approved the comment by Tl1xtor (03:00:29) but he/she needs to go to moderator re-education camp.
@ savethesharks (19:58:39) : Perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.
Even Newton had to toe the line to some degree. He was an accomplished politician as well as a scientist, and knew which side his bread was buttered on. He was elected Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669. In that day, any fellow of Cambridge or Oxford had to be an ordained Anglican priest. However, the terms of the Lucasian professorship required that the holder not be active in the church (presumably so as to have more time for science). Newton argued that this should exempt him from the ordination requirement, and Charles II, whose permission was needed, accepted this argument. In April 1705 Queen Anne knighted Newton during a royal visit to Trinity College, Cambridge. The knighthood is likely to have been motivated by political considerations connected with the Parliamentary election in May 1705, rather than any recognition of Newton’s scientific work or services as Master of the Mint.
So it was also with other greats, such as Galileo, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Copernicus, Einstein, etc. A scientist ignores the political realities at the risk of his/her reputation, and in some cases, their life.
Tl1xtor (03:00:29)
It appears that either Anthony’s firewall has a hole (doubtful), or that a moderator was a bit too quick on the “approve” button?
I’m only lashing out because that post got approved before mine ;*)
JimB
What’s with the post at 03:00:29? The snipper broke?
Reply: All comments are moderated, and spam is normally caught by a filter and manually scanned – at which point it is either approved (some legitimate posts can be caught by the filter) or deleted. It is likely one of the moderators accidentally approved it while doing a bulk approve from the filtered posts.
Thanks for catching it – John
“The problem is that reason and fact have been, and always will be, bent to the wishes of those in power or who want power.”
Aldous Huxley wrote:
“Surely it’s obvious.
Doesn’t every schoolboy know it?
Ends are ape-chosen; only the means are man’s.
Papio’s procurer, bursar to baboons,
Reason comes running, eager to ratify;
Comes, a catch-fart, with Philosophy, truckling to tyrants;
Comes, a pimp for Prussia, with Hegel’s Patent History”
My favourite quote from the paper.
“Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. ”
Exercising sound judgement in matters of science seems to be a quality lacking in some scientific groups today.
What we see on WUWT and many other sites is what we know to be true but as long as the media persist in believing or at least publishing or showing every press release or claim made by some graduate who has completed his PhD on climate change or a longer established ‘scientist’ whose grant is due,then there seems little chance that the real truth is liable to be more widely accepted. One of the main reasons, as Lindzen says, is that Co2 is a dream come true for bureaucrats.
It is a depressing fact that I have friends whose sole knowledge on climate change is what they know from the BBC or the press.
“The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
I hate to be a party pooper, but the way I read this statement by Lindzen indicatres that he is missing the target, and in the process also setting up a sort of strqwman that the rest of the essay is devoted to knocking down. My impression from viewing the Gore movie was certainly not that he was voicing concern about an increase of a few tenths of a degree other than to point out that this was a portent of disaster to come. There may be alarmists out there who are advocating a steady climate for its own merits, but I have not encountered their writings yet. In short, I think that Lindzen very unfortunateely got off on the wrong foot. Or maybe I am reading something in to the essay or misinterpreting what he is saying.
Bob D (00:58:09)
I had a look at your exchanges with Mr Vilain. He seems like a strange individual and very like my favourite troll, the one who calls himself dhogaza.
Funny – I’m a geologist too and I have also seen the same evidence which Dr Naish has seen in the field; i.e., that the earth’s climate has always changed and oftern very rapidly, but I came to the conclusion that it’s not our fault this time. It certainly wasn’t before.
This actually belongs and is on the ““Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean” thread. I am posting it here because the other thread has grown cold and there has been a new development on it from Lucia.
Lucia proved that the difference method does include the trend. I looked back at regular derivatives. If you take the derivative of a linear term, e.g. 3x, you get 3, so the information is still in the first derivative. The derivative of a constant WRT x is zero. But a linear trend is just that, a linear function of x.
Thanks to Lucia!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/that-soi-paper-climate-change-worse-than-we-thought/
Reading the words “climate” and “justice” together makes me shiver.
I hope we don’t end up like Servetus or Galilei.
Eppur si muove.
page48 (22:22:57) : “I really like Richard Lindzen and appreciate his efforts. However, I wish he would stop insulting the public. It wasn’t the public who started the scare-mongering about climate and it isn’t the public, in general, that propagates it. It is the climate scientists.”
I disagree with that. I was (semi) concious in the 70s when the environmental movement was getting up to steam. Those are the people who have put us in the mess more than any other group. Environmentalists are ruining the country in the name of saving the planet. They need to be singled out for derision.v (And no, this does not mean I don’t want to take care of air and water and forests – I like having them around.)
papertiger – if it were “climate change” opponents who’d taken that money, that item would make headlines across the country, and almost assuredly make the front page of the NYT.
But since the ones taking the money were “morally pure” AGW proponents and Big Government proponents, I guarantee you will never hear another word about this story in any MSM outlet. It will be censored and forgotten – it doesn’t fit the political narrative they are sworn to sell.
Just watch and see.
Game changer? Not a chance. No one will see it unless there is some underground movement to get the word out.
C Colenaty (05:44:49) :”Or maybe I am reading something in to the essay or misinterpreting what he [Lindzen] is saying.”
Thanks for that disclaimer…because I agree with you on that count….that you are reading something in to what he was saying.
There is no “strawman” in his essay…at all. It’s tighter than a drum.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
C Colenaty (05:44:49) : It is you who missed the target.
Curiousgeorge (05:05:46) : “So it was also with other greats, such as Galileo, Da Vinci, Aristotle, Copernicus, Einstein, etc. A scientist ignores the political realities at the risk of his/her reputation, and in some cases, their life.”
Thanks for that bit of history, Curious George. And I am not inclined to disagree at all with the above summation.
But in spite of the fact that so many people are cattle and they will follow anything, to expound a bit: the REAL problem is that the leaders who still run this world [and thus lead the cattle]: STILL ain’t that bright.
I won’t name any names….
georgebushbarackobamakarlrovealgorejohnholdrenjohnashcroftjameshansen etc. ad nauseum.
The more and more normal, sane, and yes, just plain ole middle class people I talk to, the LESS they buy the bills of goods they are being fed.
And given the “leaders” we have in the world today and the bastardization of science to a degree not seen in our lifetimes…all the joe and jane average citizens out there SHOULD be cynical and mistrustful.
That is what I was saying that we are on the cusp where we could, with the right “upper and mid level support” [heh heh for all you weather fiends out there] evolve in a way which will be positive for our species and for the planet.
If not….then we will of course….devolve.
But I remain optimistic….as long as there are scientists like Professor Lindzen using his position for the good and calling it like it is…and as long as there are places like Wattsupwiththat.com to help proliferate the free flow of information and the truth.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Geoff Sherrington (20:03:58) : Are you suggesting that, somehow, those aliens managed before dying, to transmigrate to those then recent born babies?
Who knows!…some look older even when subjected to cosmetic surgery.
It is interesting to read this piece and the comments. There is only on comment that takes issue with Lindzen’s piece. This shows how the internet is working against a real dialog between people of opposing views. People come here to affirm their views, rather than to understand the issue of climate change.
I am appalled that a prestigious scientist such as Lindzen can make such illogical arguments, and misrepresent the scientific theory that supports AGW.
C Colenaty (05:44:49)
has it right, when he says,
“I hate to be a party pooper, but the way I read this statement by Lindzen indicatres that he is missing the target, and in the process also setting up a sort of strqwman that the rest of the essay is devoted to knocking down. My impression from viewing the Gore movie was certainly not that he was voicing concern about an increase of a few tenths of a degree other than to point out that this was a portent of disaster to come. There may be alarmists out there who are advocating a steady climate for its own merits, but I have not encountered their writings yet. In short, I think that Lindzen very unfortunateely got off on the wrong foot. Or maybe I am reading something in to the essay or misinterpreting what he is saying.”
In fact the idea of AGW is 100 years old, is based on radiation physics and the temperture dependence of the vapor pressure of water. The other factors that determine climate are also observed and modeled to determine their impact. The theory was developed well before the warming trend of the last 35 years became evident. The science did not originate with environmentalists or politicians at all.
As a matter of fact, climate change has the opposite characteristics of an issue attractive to politicians. A concrete clear threat like terrorism is a great political issue. Nobody really has seen climate change, and most people are skeptical that humans can alter climate. This makes it a poor issue for winning elections and staying in office.
What I cannot understand is this statement:
The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface
1. How does heat get into deep ocean layers whithout heating the intervening layers? UV??
2. How does heat lurk in deep layers for many years without finding the need to obey physical properties of liquids and rise to the surface?
3. All ocean currents seem to rely on the more normal hot water running along the top, getting cold at the pole and running back along the bottom.
4. Is lindzen proposing a new form of water – heavier when hot? until it leeps upwards every so often to heat the world.
Confused – I am!
For the modellers, I have found a bargain:
Retailers whose PRINCIPAL business is Second Hand Models.
http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/counties/modelShops
The referenced article:
A new dynamical mechanism for major 1 climate shifts.
Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, & Sergey Kravtsov
http://www.uwm.edu/~kravtsov/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf
There is a great series in the Financial Post written by Lawrence Soloman concerning the monies behind the “Climate Change” brouhaha. Here is the one that explains the Enron reference, a great read as is the entire series!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx
savethesharks (06:54:44) :
the REAL problem is that the leaders who still run this world [and thus lead the cattle]: STILL ain’t that bright.
Some turned the world order upside down more than two hundred years ago, giving power to the unfitted.
The problem with all of this enlightenment is that facts don’t matter to people who only want power. If it’s not AGW it will be some new “manufactured” crisis. Hang on folks, as Obama’s poll numbers keep dropping there certainly will be some new, even more serious diversion. Hopefully they won’t trump up some new crisis with very serious but unforeseen consequences.
bill (07:22:53) :
What I cannot understand is this statement:
The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface
I am sure he meant “energy” instead.
BTW, they are many possible kinds of water, nobel prize winner chemist Linus Pauling presented 5 of them before the Royal Society, many years ago.
eric (07:20:09) : “In fact the idea of AGW is 100 years old, is based on radiation physics and the temperture dependence of the vapor pressure of water.”
We have heard all this BS before. The climate models do not accurately model climate – the fact that the idea of greenhouse gas warming has been around over 100 years is irrelevant. The fact is that Earth’s climate is complex, is not well understood, and depends on more that ONLY radiative physics. Even most of the climate modelers will tell you that the action of clouds is not well understood or accounted for. I would say you are full of it.
bill (07:22:53) :
“1. How does heat get into deep ocean layers whithout heating the intervening layers? UV??”
Heat gets into the ocean at the surface, water evaporates making the salinity along with the density increase. The hot water eventually gets dense enough to sink.
“2.How does heat lurk in deep layers for many years without finding the need to obey physical properties of liquids and rise to the surface?”
See answer to #1.
“3.All ocean currents seem to rely on the more normal hot water running along the top, getting cold at the pole and running back along the bottom.”
See answer to #1.
“4.Is lindzen proposing a new form of water – heavier when hot? until it leeps upwards every so often to heat the world.”
See answer to #1.
I would like to ask for some help please.
In an article in ‘The Observer’ (UK Newspaper) yesterday by Suzanne Goldenberg and Damien Carrington they said (about the Arctic):
‘More than a million square kilometers of sea ice – a record loss – were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year. Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse’
On 9th July 2009 Geoffrey Lean in the UK Telegraph
‘In September 2007, the Arctic ice cap shrank by a massive 200,000 square miles below its previous smallest extent, something not expected, even with global warming, before 2050. Last year was little better, and so far this year is much the same’
I think from what I have read elsewhere that these statements (which sound very similar) are not true. Please can someone give me some facts and figures as to the truth of this matter? The quotes are so similar that I suspect they come from the same source. Does anyone know what that might be?
The links to the articles are as follows;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/5789961/Can-Barack-Obama-save-us-from-hell.html
Thanks
Alan Haile
London UK
COLA is showing again some pretty cool weather across the USA for the next weeks
And what story was featured on one of the evening news channels yesterday? Drought in Texas with an incredible heat wave. Crops ruined.
Earth bears scars of human destruction: astronaut
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_space_shuttle
“This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time,” Thrisk said. “That saddens me a little bit.”
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
WOW, July must be really hot….can’t wait to see these numbers when they come out.
It’s been record cool here in Ky for July
All of this is very interesting.
2. How does heat lurk in deep layers for many years without finding the need to obey physical properties of liquids and rise to the surface?
Salinity variations. You can use a pond with high salinity water on top as a solar collector. The delta Ts can get pretty large if the pond has an absorbing bottom.
Meanwhile, the NOAA is putting out GOOD stuff on forecasting using statistical models (if conditions were thus in the past and then A happens, it should happen again when those same conditions occur). The LIM model is considered to be the most reliable. See the following paper.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/michael.alexander/alexander.el_al.revised.j_climate.5-07.pdf
The current LIM forecast for ENSO is neutral and then slightly negative through the winter. While the dynamical models indicate an El Nino event this winter, these models are in their infancy. The statistical models are older and have a longer track record. The LIM model is the one to watch in my opinion.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
eric:
Your charge that Lindzen makes “such illogical arguments, and misrepresent(s) the scientific theory that supports AGW” needs a little more support to be taken seriously. Can you elaborate?
Your point that this site is dominated by skeptics is true, but then RC is dominated by AGWers. The polarization is natural, though it may be somewhat unhelpful for a useful dialogue.
not a comment but do you accept advertising?
I have a book published about ‘Climate change’ which comes from a Christian perspective (but is NOT ‘recent creationism’). It is called “While the Earth Endures: creation, cosmology and climate change” by Philip Foster and a foreword by Prof David Bellamy OBE. It has had one or two helpful endorsements, including one from Vaclav Klaus. Brief details of book on Website.
Bill, he didn’t specify the direction. Somewhat deceptive phrasing I’ll admit. And he may have been speaking in the strict definition of “heat”, ie: “a form of energy”. It could have been made clearer, and it may be worthwhile to ask him to clarify what he said.
bill (07:22:53) :
Confused you are.
The new form of water that Dr. Lindzen is proposing is salt water.
The density of the salt water in the ocean is a function of salinity and temperature.
Yes indeed warmer water with high salinity can settle below cold, less saline water.
Probably not new news to most but from today’s UK Daily Telegraph a postive effect of climate change in the Middle Ages. In South America and during the MWP.
Isn’t it an alarmist “fact” that the MWP was only a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon ? I know that CO2 Science has details of many hundreds of studies that disprove that very important part of the alarmist story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5916353/Climate-change-helped-the-Incas-build-civilisation.html
CC says:
My impression from viewing the Gore movie was certainly not that he was voicing concern about an increase of a few tenths of a degree other than to point out that this was a portent of disaster to come.
Well of course. And the rise of temperature in my neighborhood yesterday was about 25F from 3 AM to 3 PM. Portent of disaster to come or natural variation? Only the models know for sure. I’ll ask Louisa Lockhart and get her opinion. Her natural variations are rather spectacular so I’m sure her opinion would be given suitable weight. Given that her deviations are well beyond standard I’m sure we can impute considerable significance to them.
Seriously. The IPCC say that with CO2 rising we are going to be in a cooling phase until 2020. Evidently CO2 is not as forcing as it once was.
Eric “The theory was developed well before the warming trend of the last 35 years became evident.”
HUH??? And the “warming trend” [of the last 35 years] has been well-developed and around longer than the “theory” of AGW.
Its called the recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
This piece makes it difficult to take Lindzen seriously. For example, he says:
In fact, tropical tropospheric amplification is not “a distinct signature to greenhouse warming”. It is a consequence of the fact that the vertical temperature structure of the tropical troposphere is closely pegged to the moist adiabatic lapse rate. The prediction of this amplification by climate models occurs whether you force them with increasing greenhouse gases or with increasing solar irradiance ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ ). [The significant difference that you see in the vertical structure for these two forcings is that the solar forcing results in warming of the stratosphere whereas greenhouse gas forcing results in cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling is what is actually observed.]
His further argument about modifying the data is silly: It is well-known that there are extreme data quality issues when trying to pull out the multidecadal trend in the tropical troposphere. For example, the two major satellite data analyses (UAH and RSS) don’t agree well with each other. And, the radiosonde data has known artifacts in these multidecadal trends. Furthermore, it is notable that over a fairly broad range of timescales (months to several years), fluctuations in temperature do seem to obey tropical tropospheric amplification. Since these results are insensitive to the sort of artifacts that infect multidecadal trends, you have a situation where the best data seems to be in basic agreement with the theory…and it is only the most unreliable data that seems to be in disagreement.
But, at any rate, the extent of agreement or disagreement does not tell us anything about the mechanism causing the warming. (It does tell us something about how well the models are treating the convective and other processes in the tropical atmosphere…but only to the extent that the data are reliable enough.)
Hmmmm!
2. How does heat lurk in deep layers for many years without finding the need to obey physical properties of liquids and rise to the surface?
Jim (07:42:44) :
Heat gets into the ocean at the surface, water evaporates making the salinity along with the density increase. The hot water eventually gets dense enough to sink.
M. Simon (07:53:55) :
Salinity variations. You can use a pond with high salinity water on top as a solar collector. The delta Ts can get pretty large if the pond has an absorbing bottom.
Does salt water sink or rise?
Well, I would go with sink in a non static ocean.
So hot water becomes salty and sinks. But then it must pass though cold water and would therefore share the heat making lower layers warm.
So yet another property of salt water must be tunneling. Hot water tunnels through the cold layers and remains hot.
Curiousgeorge (08:01:45) :
Bill, he didn’t specify the direction. Somewhat deceptive phrasing I’ll admit. And he may have been speaking in the strict definition of “heat”, ie: “a form of energy”. It could have been made clearer, and it may be worthwhile to ask him to clarify what he said.
So possibly the sea surface gets warm and therefore the more energetic molecules (zipping around in joyous warmth) dive through the lethargic cold molecules underneath and form a splendid hyped up layer of h20 molecules feeling energetic in the depths of the ocean. Here they stay in this blissful energetic state until some time later they go for the surface delivering the energy back to the atmosphere.
So what’s the physics behind this then?
In fact the idea of AGW is 100 years old, is based on radiation physics and the temperture dependence of the vapor pressure of water.
The idea of phlogiston is even older. Doesn’t mean it is correct. There are lots of old ideas that do not match the data. There are even new ideas that do not match the data.
Maurice Garoutte (08:04:32) :
But how did the warm water get below the cold without makingthe cold warm?
hehe,
“Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth.”
So 97% of climatologists are part of a major government conspiracy involving all western governments. A conspiracy that has been perpetuated across several terms of office involving different parties. The single bastion of truth is a professor completely untainted by the massive amount of consultancy money he receives from oil companies.
It does seem likely.
Eric “In fact the idea of AGW is 100 years old, is based on radiation physics and the temperture dependence of the vapor pressure of water.”
You are not distinguishing between two separate issues here: The Greenhouse Effect, and Anthropogenic Global Warming. But you should.
The former no reasonable person would disagree with….and I’m glad you mention the BIG player in the Greenhouse Effect: water vapor!!
The latter…..well…perhaps that is best covered by your next quote:
“The other factors that determine climate are also observed and modeled to determine their impact.”
Such as the many failed climate model extrapolations….too many to count…LOL
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“As a matter of fact, climate change has the opposite characteristics of an issue attractive to politicians.”
HUH? What planet do you live on?? May I remind you of the last American presidential election where BOTH presidential candidates made it a big-ticket item.
And to this day, the one elected into power uses it to advance HUGE political pressure [and seedy shady calculated economic gains through cap and trade].
Al Gore is the new Dick Cheney. Same —-, different administration, different content, but SAME end result:
ILL-GOTTEN $$$ for cronies at the expense of the American People.
So your comments are completely 180 degrees off base.
Joel Shore (08:20:54) : “This piece makes it difficult to take Lindzen seriously. For example, he says:
In fact, tropical tropospheric amplification is not “a distinct signature to greenhouse warming”. ”
You are attempting to rewrite history here. The models did indeed predict more than the observed warming of the LT. I know that is an inconvenient truth for you, but you can’t keep changing the game without getting called on it.
“Nobody really has seen climate change, and most people are skeptical that humans can alter climate. “
Well the last part of that sentence I can agree with.
They/we ARE and they/we SHOULD BE!
The first part however….
Of COURSE no one has seen climate change, bud! No one lives that long. LOL
Climate CHANGES….that’s what it DOES….as it has done for billions of years!!!
But thanks for giving me a lot of juicy tidbits to shoot down.
Back to work for me before I get fired ha ha.
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
bill (08:29:08) asks:
Maurice,
“But how did the warm water get below the cold without makingthe cold warm?”
The ocean is not a static contained bucket of water. There is of course some mixing of temperature as the heavy saline water sinks but then the layers can remain separate for long periods.
Please google .
The filter deleted the phrase “temperature inversion” ocean salinity. from my above post. It was inclosed in the characters….. well that’s not going to work.
Joel Shore (08:20:54) : “For example, the two major satellite data analyses (UAH and RSS) don’t agree well with each other.”
Spouting this kind of BS make you lose your credibility. UAH and RSS agree very well. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980
It is GISS that does not agree well with the satellites. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/offset:-.2
James: “So 97% of climatologists are part of a major government conspiracy…”
Where did that number come from, where the sun don’t shine?
Bernie (07:55:50) :
wrote,
“eric:
Your charge that Lindzen makes “such illogical arguments, and misrepresent(s) the scientific theory that supports AGW” needs a little more support to be taken seriously. Can you elaborate?
Your point that this site is dominated by skeptics is true, but then RC is dominated by AGWers. The polarization is natural, though it may be somewhat unhelpful for a useful dialogue.”
Bernie,
Another incorrect point that he makes was discussed above also. The warming of the upper troposphere is not a unique signature of warming due to forcing by GHG’s. It is sad to see a scientitist misrepresenting the science.
Lindzen implies that rapid variation in regional climate means that global warming is irrelevant. The fact that regional variation is larger than global variation does not automatically prove a regional trend does not exist. It is an inappropriate argument for a scientists. A statement about a trend requires careful and appropriate statistical analysis.
In addition it is known from the data, that the Arctic region will warm the most rapidly of any region on earth, while other regions will take longer to show warming.
The models say so also.
James (08:30:42) :
So 97% of climatologists are part of a major government conspiracy involving all western governments. A conspiracy that has been perpetuated across several terms of office involving different parties.
Yeah, jim-jims, keep flogging that “conspiracy” strawman. That will get you far. Not.
Dear Anthony,
I read the now well known Copenhagen Synthesis Report and I do have a question that puzzled me ever since. It shows in its figure 2:
“The change in energy content in different components of the Earth System for two periods: 1961-2003 (blue bars) and 1993-2003 (pink bars)2 (figure 5.4).”
The same Figure is shown in IPCC AR4 as Figure TS.15. It explicitly states it is the energy content change of the whole earth.
The energy content change of the earth system for the period 1993 – 2003 according to the figure is 8.9x10E22 Joule. Divided by the area of the earth and the seconds of 10 years this gives 0.55 W/m2.
However, this suggests to mean the models are off by approx. 0.8 W/m2 for this 10 year period alone in terms of energy conservation. Since the net anthropogenic radiative forcing according to the IPCC is about 1.3 W/m2 in this period, doesn’t the energy content change show that there is negative feedback?
Do I miss something here? Maybe I miss the definition of net radiative forcing or the definition of energy content change forr the earth system?
Shouldn’t the 0.55W/m2 be an estimation for the net radiative forcing. I had not so nice experiences asking naive questions like that at Realclimate. Maybe you guys can help me out and explain my difficulties.
Best regards
Guenter Hess
Another good essay from Professor Lindzen, whch shows he has a great deal of common sense – a rare quality amongst climate scientists. As an ex-IPCC member, it also shows much courage. Scientists who dissent from the AGW alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.
All evidence proves that increased levels of CO2 are a follower of a warmer climate, and it is the interplay of the sun and water (in all it’s forms) which are the real clmate drivers.
It’s a shame more scientists don’t ‘come out’ and refute the lies the mass media are promulgating about climate change, which gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that is supposedly their basis. Our climate is a chaotic system with many non-linear processes operating in harmony. This means that trying to predict our future climate using low level linear models with poor quality data is a futile exercise – the money being spent on reducing CO2 levels could be better employed in improving weather forecasting, so people can prepare for short-term events.
novoburgo: “Where did that number come from, where the sun don’t shine?”
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, 2009
Another incorrect point made by Lindzen is that past climate changes represent some kind of proof that AGW is a wrong theory. Since the release of CO2 by human industry is an unprecedent mode of climate forcing, precedent is not a guide.
Furthermore the fact that the life on earth is still here after many climate cycles does not negate the fact that it climate change can cause human hardship. Drought and floods, have caused mass migration even in the recent past.
Increased incidence of such events, precipitated by AGW, which is projected by the climate models would not be a good thing. With the world population close to carrying capacity, social instability is a real risk under these circumstances.
wws (06:21:24) :
papertiger – if it were “climate change” opponents who’d taken that money, that item would make headlines across the country,…
…Game changer? Not a chance. No one will see it unless there is some underground movement to get the word out.
That’s why we’re here – I always thought. Here’s a companion peice in the L. A. Times – Did juckets corrupt California’s climate regulators?
and another one from 2007 Others pay state leaders’ way on trips.
At the very least you should bookmark these stories for when people like James (08:30:42) : start tossing around vague accusations about who and who isn’t an oil company stooge.
James, I do know of paid oil company stooges. CARB, Cal EPA, PUC, In fact a veritable who’s who of climate change oversight in California government, including the legislators who wrote the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
It wouldn’t surprize me in the slightest to find out Al Gore was paid top dollar by Chevron, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric, Shell Oil, British Petroleum, BHP Billiton, Calpine, Occidental Petroleum, Sempra Energy, oh and Goldman Sachs .
In fact I have documentation showing that the authors of AB32 and the regulators tasked with enforcing global warming mitigation, many of whom had their jobs created by the legislation, were and are in fact OIL COMPANY STOOGES.
What have you got backing up your slur against Prof Lindzen?
Here’s a better version of the original Bee story, via Tom Nelson.
Jim says:
I am talking about the overall TRENDS, not the ups-and-downs…and not the global ones but the ones in the tropics. (The global ones disagree somewhat…and in fact, UAH is the outlier with RSS, GISS, and Hadcrut very similar, but I think the trends in the tropics for RSS and UAH disagree more significantly.)
In terms of the variability (e.g., due to ENSO), one would expect RSS and UAH to track more closely to each other than the surface temps because the surface temps and LT temps are somewhat different animals.
It might help you understand what I am saying if you read more than one sentence of what I wrote at a time. Then you wouldn’t embarrass yourself by responding to strawmen arguments but could actually address my real arguments.
1. Who is Joel Shore? What are his scientific credentials, if any?
2. I do not believe Lindzen is insulting the intelligence of the public. He is pointing out that a considerable segment of the public has bought into the Big AGW Lies after repeated bombardment for two decades.
Oops. I left out “not”. “. . . Lindzen is NOT insulting . . .”
Joel Shore (08:20:54) : Rather than thump your Bible, you might wish to actually explain why Lindzen’s theoretical explanation is wrong:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
It seems to me that the “hot-spot” MUST be related to IR in one way or another. So in that case one might say it is related to WV, perhaps?
However I must agree with this statement:
“it is only the most unreliable data that seems to be in disagreement”
Yes, the much lauded surface data is unreliable, thank you for conceding as such 😉 Or did you mean that you think that the satellites STILL need corrections? So what is the problem with them? Why are they wrong? Unless you can give a reason WHY the satellite data would be wrong, you are full of $#!%. Sorry.
eric (07:20:09) : “In fact the idea of AGW is 100 years old, is based on radiation physics and the temperture dependence of the vapor pressure of water.” Apart from the fact that you can’t even spell temperature…CC BOUNDS WV it does not determine it!
“The other factors that determine climate are also observed and modeled to determine their impact.”
This statement is false. Period. Before the seventies, there are no observations of solar irradiance, and even after that the can be stitched together so as to have a trend or not-guess which version is preferred? Aerosols are also little observed. Before Pinatubo Volcanoes were not carefully observed in their effects. And on and on. But crucially, more than any other factor: Observations of clouds are just starting to get of sufficient quality for climate analysis. I can’t put this in any more polite way-you are either totally ignorant or lying.
James (08:30:42) : “So 97% of climatologists are part of a major government conspiracy involving all western governments. A conspiracy that has been perpetuated across several terms of office involving different parties. The single bastion of truth is a professor completely untainted by the massive amount of consultancy money he receives from oil companies.”
You should be called a warmist also because you re-warm the same old cold pile of BS.
I write my post and they go on to make more stupid comments. Joel, eric, from now on, I’m going to ignore you. There is no point trying to convince you that your fervent belief is unjustified-it’s clearly deeply ingrained.
eric (09:49:06) : “Another incorrect point made by Lindzen is that past climate changes represent some kind of proof that AGW is a wrong theory. Since the release of CO2 by human industry is an unprecedent mode of climate forcing, precedent is not a guide. Furthermore the fact that the life on earth is still here after many climate cycles does not negate the fact that it climate change can cause human hardship. Drought and floods, have caused mass migration even in the recent past. Increased incidence of such events, precipitated by AGW, which is projected by the climate models would not be a good thing. With the world population close to carrying capacity, social instability is a real risk under these circumstances.”
Ooooo, Eric. That is so scary! We should all go hide in the closet! I guess you didn’t get the memo that the dynamic climate models are not working, unless you count the endless adjustments to make them fit changing realities as “working.”
Maurice Garoutte (08:56:52) :
Right, so now we have cold freshish water over the top of warm saline. This is fine, no problem there. Although most papers I have been able to read (pay-wall problems) suggest this is a seasonal effect.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_22/issue_3/0442.pdf
http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/academy/52-0619.pdf
http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/1714/2/Proc_PORSEC_2000_1_458.pdf
But are we not looking for a multi-decade stable system? Is there any evidence of this?
One should remember we are trying to explain away a good proportion of temperature rise over the last 50 years.
So since the TSI is virtually constant over this time and GHGs have little effect The energy budget of the earth must be similar i.e. input=output.
The rise in temps must be due to heat being removed from the atmosphere and stored in the sea. So one should be seein a cooling of the earth until the last 50 year rise (there is only a fixed amount of energy available in the energy budget that heats the sea, the land and the air.)
The current temperature is now similar to or above MWP. The LIA presumably is warm air to deap ocean. The current warming is presumably warm deep ocean to air. So temperatures should now start dropping us back to another LIA as the heat gets sucked back into the oceans.
The effect we are looking for is therefore something that holds heat in the ocean temperature inversion for over 100 years. That seems too stable a sytem for such a turbulent ocean.
Do the sinking buoys (jason) measure such a system. Or have they not been placed in the right area yet?
papertiger: “What have you got backing up your slur against Prof Lindzen?”
About as much as Lindzen has to back up his conspiracy theory. 🙂
@just Cait (21:21:17)
“Instead of using ‘global warming’ or ‘climate crisis’, the best new term is “deteriorating atmosphere” or “our deteriorating atmosphere”
(personalizing the term).”
“Idling” is the new term I’ve seen twice in our local weekly newspaper at the Jersey Shore. Idling is now more dangerous to the environment of Long Beach Island than any human behavior or natural catastrophe. Look more more personalization such as “revving” or “improper acceleration”.
Tenuc (09:42:47) :
“Another good essay from Professor Lindzen, whch shows he has a great deal of common sense – a rare quality amongst climate scientists. As an ex-IPCC member, it also shows much courage. Scientists who dissent from the AGW alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
So explain why Lindzen, Spencer and Christy still have jobs despite their dissent. The real story is that there are scientists that have an emotional need to be outliers. That is a more realistic hypothesis than to say that 97% of active research climatologists lack courage and are lackeys of some mysterious conspiracy.
“All evidence proves that increased levels of CO2 are a follower of a warmer climate, and it is the interplay of the sun and water (in all it’s forms) which are the real clmate drivers.”
This statement is absolutely wrong.
The greenhouse effect is 150 years old this year. The theory that industrial emissions would warm the planet dates from 1896. Spectroscopic observations and observations of the atmosphere confirm that increases in CO2 will warm the planet. All working scientists agree that CO2 doubling without any other feedback or changes in forcings will increase the average temperature 1C if nothing else happens.
In addition, in Permian times CO2 from Siberian volcanoes has been determined to have caused a global warming event which impacted the oceans.
“It’s a shame more scientists don’t ‘come out’ and refute the lies the mass media are promulgating about climate change, which gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that is supposedly their basis. Our climate is a chaotic system with many non-linear processes operating in harmony. This means that trying to predict our future climate using low level linear models with poor quality data is a futile exercise – the money being spent on reducing CO2 levels could be better employed in improving weather forecasting, so people can prepare for short-term events.”
The climate models are indeed nonlinear and chaotic as a result. A slight change of initial conditions will alter the climate trajectory significantly.
That is why multiple runs must be made to project the range of possible outcomes, and no definite prediction is made.
You would know all of the above, if you studied this issue seriously, if you hadn’t confined your internet browsing to[snip] blogs.
“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope”
Indeed. So we star with a straw man.
“Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.”
“We” don’t “fully” understand anything at all about the natural world, so this sentence is not meaningful.
“there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface”
This is not a distinct signature to greenhouse warming. The same response would be expected from warming due to increased solar activity.
“Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.”
And we come nicely full-circle and finish with another straw man. Most things in between are just a review of fringe science, presented as if there are no other results. The claim about the ‘greenhouse signature’ is so basic that it is impossible to believe that Lindzen didn’t know this was incorrect. Why then did he make this claim?
Saw this over at “small dead animals”. Another “model” prediction down the tubes:
So science daily reports that “the models” predict one of the largest “dead zones” recorded. The next day it is reported that the dead zone is half the “expected size”.
Two questions:
1. Why do models always seem to predict doom, things always getting “worse” or do we just hear about it only when they predict doom?
2. Why, time after time, when the models have been shown to be either grossly incorrect or forecasting things going in the opposite of observations do people still report the model forecasts as if they are “actionable” and policy can be based on them?
timetochooseagain:
“eric (07:20:09) : “In fact the idea of AGW is 100 years old, is based on radiation physics and the temperture dependence of the vapor pressure of water.” Apart from the fact that you can’t even spell temperature…CC BOUNDS WV it does not determine it!
“The other factors that determine climate are also observed and modeled to determine their impact.”
This statement is false. Period. Before the seventies, there are no observations of solar irradiance, and even after that the can be stitched together so as to have a trend or not-guess which version is preferred? Aerosols are also little observed. Before Pinatubo Volcanoes were not carefully observed in their effects. And on and on. But crucially, more than any other factor: Observations of clouds are just starting to get of sufficient quality for climate analysis. I can’t put this in any more polite way-you are either totally ignorant or lying.’
How about this publication in 1981 by James Hansen, who was an expert on the effect of aerosols, having studied sulfates on Venus as part of his PHD thesis.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/4511/957
“Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen 1, D. Johnson 1, A. Lacis 1, S. Lebedeff 1, P. Lee 1, D. Rind 1, and G. Russell 1
1 Atmospheric physicists at the NASA Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, New York 10025
The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960’s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”
Areosals, solar luminosity are mentioned as fluctuations about the increasing temperature trend and were considered in Hansen’s paper, contrary to what you claim.
Climate modelers credit solar variations with causing the increase in temperature earlier in the century.
Hansen’s paper has been basically right up to now.
Professor Lindzen wrote:
“In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear.”
I recalled a conservation I had with a fellow student in the late 70s, having read many a university prospectus, I reckoned that I was fairly familiar with most faculties courses, in Geology, Geography, Biol’, Geo’ Chem’ etc. When playing football for the Uni, in the process of getting to know team mates, I enquired about particular courses people were studying, answers were varied, and one guy piped up “environmental science”!- puzzled I asked,
“Whats that all about?”
He said, “29% science and 80% BS!”
I do remember the discipline being fairly new to British campuses and I think the environmental lobby has never looked back.
“Science or Social Science?
Environmental Studies (ES) degree courses have now been operating for well over twenty years. Responding to the first great rise in awareness of environmental issues, the early pioneering courses established a tradition which many other HE institutions have followed. ES takes an holistic approach to the study of the environment. This means that it has to transcend the science/social science divide, and also be prepared to accept insight from the arts and humanities. So, although a basic training in environmental sciences (ecology, geology, climatology, biology etc.) will be included, you will also get a foundation in social science (politics, economics, sociology etc.) However, it is probably only in the first year that you will encounter these traditional disciplines as separate subjects. A genuinely inter-disciplinary Environmental Studies degree will offer integrated modules in areas like waste management, rural and urban planning, ecotourism and resource management, gradually becoming more specialised as you progress to your final year. It is this wide range of areas, taught in an interdisciplinary fashion, that makes Environmental Studies such a distinct degree.”
from http://www.instudy.com/articles/ec191ao7.htm
Oft said in (my neck of the woods) – Yorkshire, ES -tis “neither owt nor summat.”
Mixing Politics and Humanities with science is never perfect as Curious George alluded to, just ask Isaac Newton, but it is the human condition.
Ain’t life a greenhouse gas!
James (10:21:28) : “What have you got backing up your slur against Prof Lindzen?”
About as much as Lindzen has to back up his conspiracy theory. 🙂
CARTHAGE, Tenn.–On his 1998 tax returns under “supplemental income,” Vice President Al Gore lists a $20,000 royalty payment from Union Zinc Inc. for the right to mine zinc from his 88-acre farm here in the verdant hills of the Cumberland River valley. In the 25 years he has held the zinc lease, Mr. Gore has earned more than $450,000.
The man who provided Mr. Gore with that farm and mineral lease is of some note as the 2000 presidential race begins. Mr. Gore’s father, former Sen. Albert Gore Sr., acquired the land and mineral rights on what appears to be highly favorable terms from Armand Hammer, the late chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp. Mr. Hammer, an influence peddler of the highest magnitude, trafficked in politicians of all parties and stripes; he pleaded guilty in 1975 to making illegal contributions to Richard Nixon’s campaign in the Watergate affair. But the closest and most sustained of Mr. Hammer’s connections seem to have been with the elder Mr. Gore and his family. It was the earliest of a number of controversial associations that tarnish the stiff Boy Scout image of Al Gore Jr.
Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn’t Gore dump his family’s large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family’s trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.
In 1922, Secretary of the Interior, Albert B.Fall leased the entire Teapot Dome Reserve for twenty years to his friend, Harry F. Sinclair, head of the Sinclair Oil Coporation with no competitive bidding. It was later proved that Fall had accepted a bribe for the transfer of naval oil reserves to privates interests and he was sent to prison. In fact, Teapot Dome became the legacy for Warren Harding’s administration.
In an eerie re-enactment of Teapot Dome, Al Gore, endorsed the sale of the OTHER Naval Oil Reserve, at Elk Hills which is located near Bakersfield, California. President Clinton proposed sale of the Navy’s Petroleum Reserve in 1995 saying the oil field was no longer needed for emergency fuelling of America’s ships.
Savage notes:
“The DOE (Energy Department) received a total of 22 bona fide offers but decided to sell this “crown jewel” of oil and gas fields to Occidental Petroleum Corp.”
As much as all that, James? Well show us.
20% Doh! should use number pad.
Joel Shore (10:00:42) : “It might help you understand what I am saying if you read more than one sentence of what I wrote at a time. Then you wouldn’t embarrass yourself by responding to strawmen arguments but could actually address my real arguments.”
It would be helpful if you provided links to charts illustrating the data to which you refer. For example, provide a chart showing both UAH and RSS LT measurements.
RW (10:47:19) : ““there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface”
This is not a distinct signature to greenhouse warming. The same response would be expected from warming due to increased solar activity.
Since we know solar output has been pretty steady lately, it can’t be that. Therefore, it can only be greenhouse warming – if it is there, that is.
Your point that this site is dominated by skeptics is true, but then RC is dominated by AGWers. The polarization is natural, though it may be somewhat unhelpful for a useful dialogue.
I will note, however, that dissenting views are allowed as much as possible on this site. If they are reasonable and polite, they are never snipped. It takes genuine talent to get repeatedly censored here. We have a number of regular pro-AGW posters, and they are most welcome here. (And, as a moderator of this site, I can say that with some authority.)
REPLY: Ditto that. – Anthony
eric:
I do not know if you are still monitoring this thread, but I hope so. I agree with you that Dr. Lindzen goes a bit over the top with some of his comments that imply conspiracy among people who believe the IPCC version of AGW; perhaps it is a reaction to the quite horrible accusations he is subject to every time he questions the magnitude of AGW. Still, Dr Lindzen (like everyone) would do better to stick to the technical issues, and leave out ad hom attacks, questions about motives, and obviously political statements. There is a chance for constructive dialog on AGW if we can accept that people sincerely believe what they say and are not motivated by a “leftist agenda”, “right wing ravings”, or because they are either stupid or acting as a shill for oil companies/greens/etc. Some of your comments about Dr. Lindzen are clearly not constructive, like:
“I am appalled that a prestigious scientist such as Lindzen can make such illogical arguments, and misrepresent the scientific theory that supports AGW.”
Can you not accept that someone with Lindzen’s background, obvious intelligence, and many contributions to climate science over 35+ years might not believe he is misrepresenting the scientific theory that supports AGW? Given Lindzen’s knowledge of climate science, might his arguments be something other than completely illogical, or at least worthy of a careful and reasoned discussion? At a minimum, might Lindzen not have pure motives like the advancement of scientific understanding, or perhaps the desire to have humanity avoid economically damaging policy decisions?
I am certain that you and I have very different views of the credibility of the warming predicted by GCM’s due to infrared absorbing gases, but I am willing to accept that you reach your view based on your analysis of the available data and best understanding of how the world works. I hope that you could accept that I (and no doubt many other people) have reached my current “skeptical” view of AGW in the same way as you have reached your view.
In the end, we can’t modify physical reality. The best we can hope for is reasoned progress toward understanding what that reality is. Accepting that someone who disagrees with you may be motivated by the best of intentions is not easy, but is necessary for constructive communication. Or, as Mr. Obama said “We will extend you our hand if you will unclench your fist.” I offer you a constructive dialog.
A bit OT but perhaps it will exacerbate the urgency of the agenda-desperate bunch for carbon control:
The DMI polar temp thumb on the right side above, shows temps north of 80deg is bouncing on the low side of average and near freezing. Alert, Canada, which is at roughly 82deg, shows a 5 day weather forecast averaging at the freezing point and snowfall for each day. This means the beginning of refreezing in the arctic for the area within the 80deg circle is drawing nigh:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/71082.html
Thanks for the link Jim, I’ve saved it as a quick way to demonstrate to my AGW believing freinds that they are (sadly) deluded.
Jim (09:11:44) :
Joel Shore (08:20:54) : “For example, the two major satellite data analyses (UAH and RSS) don’t agree well with each other.”
Spouting this kind of BS make you lose your credibility. UAH and RSS agree very well. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980
It starts at zero and ends at zero, with lots of natural variation in between. Also the scales are very handy: what does 0.2° feel like? How can you measure such slight heat on a global scale? I’ve got them reading Lomborg so the lights are coming on slowly but surely.
“This means the beginning of refreezing in the arctic for the area within the 80deg circle is drawing nigh”
In fact it looks like the cam on the “pole”(in quotes because it has drifted a considerable distance from the pole) buoy shows rain and snowmelt ponds appear to be freezing over. This refreezing is much earlier than in 2007 and 2008. Another thing I have noticed is weeks of no sunshine on this year’s “pole” cam. Lack of sunshine may actually be a bad thing for next year’s ice because it is generally sunlight that causes salt to work its way out of the ice during the summer. A cloudy summer could mean saltier ice next year.
But in any case, it does appear that the refreeze is beginning though that can change. I noticed that Cryosphere Today shows a decreasing anomaly and NH ice area flat the past couple of days but there was a decreasing anomaly this time last year, too.
(By the way I realize it doesn’t exactly end at zero but I think a margin of error is tolerable on such a fine scale and for such and awe inspiring, complex system. +0.2°/-0.2° is nothing to get hung up about)
Paddy (10:03:19) :
1. Who is Joel Shore? What are his scientific credentials, if any?
Paddy, I find Joel Shore pretty obnoxious, too, but if you took the time to do the research, you’d find his credentials are pretty good: Ph.D. in Physics. He’s not a climate scientist, but his credentials to evaluate the science are at least as good as yours or mine…. I’d LIKE to be able to dismiss him, but there is probably something to be learned there…. even if he is wrong.
Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere
Politics of Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, July 27, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13170
Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.
All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in so warming predictions are no surprise. The problem is the real world is not cooperating. Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third International Conference on Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented this diagram that compared model predictions with real world data (top left graph).
As Lindzen noted, “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.” He then identified the real problem. “In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science.”
Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming is slain because they essentially ignored the role of water vapor in the atmosphere, but when used it was done incorrectly. Of course, none of this speaks to clouds, the other major water problem in the atmosphere for the global warming hypothesis and computer models. Now the world is in a blind alley with energy and economic policies based on predictions from climate models that omit major elements and use false assumptions.
eric (09:49:06) : “With the world population close to carrying capacity, social instability is a real risk under these circumstances.”
This was to add to the horror to expect with global warming, floods, droughts, etc. Interestingly, the population of the world would fit into Lake Superior with 15 sq.m. each to tread water in. If you wanted to be real cozy, 90 billion people could fit in Lake Superior with 1sq.m. to tread water in. Oh and at about 100 Btu/hr of heat loss per person, someone here can tell us how much they would warm up the lake.
Steve says:
Try doing a linear trend through the data ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend ). You will find that the trends are somewhat different. It is not a huge difference…but it is a difference…and as you can see, it is significantly larger than the difference in trends over the same time period between RSS and either of the surface records. (What matters here are the slopes…The offsets are due to different base periods.)
And, as I noted, I believe that the tropics only data shows significantly more difference in trends.
Steve Fitzpatrick
“Can you not accept that someone with Lindzen’s background, obvious intelligence, and many contributions to climate science over 35+ years might not believe he is misrepresenting the scientific theory that supports AGW? Given Lindzen’s knowledge of climate science, might his arguments be something other than completely illogical, or at least worthy of a careful and reasoned discussion? At a minimum, might Lindzen not have pure motives like the advancement of scientific understanding, or perhaps the desire to have humanity avoid economically damaging policy decisions?”
I thought I made clear why his statements were illogical. The people who supported the greenhouse theory of global warming were not using recent data to do so as he claims. The upper tropospheric warming is known to be a result of solar or GHG warming, it is not a unique signature of GHG’s. The satellite data does not definitively show that the warming is absent. The data is not that good that we can say that warming is not in accordance with theory. All of this is accepted science.
It seems his desire to avoid what he considers economically damaging policy decisions has induced him to make misstatements about the state of the science. There is also an documented element of his personality that he is a non conformist. These 2 motives acting together could explain Lindzen’s writings, in my opinion. That said, it is impossible to really determine what
is driving a person, unless you know him intimately. Whatever the reason, I am appalled that someone with his background would say the things that he does, and makes arguments that any scientific person who knows something of the subject cringe.
“I am certain that you and I have very different views of the credibility of the warming predicted by GCM’s due to infrared absorbing gases, but I am willing to accept that you reach your view based on your analysis of the availabe data and best understanding of how the world works. I hope that you could accept that I (and no doubt many other people) have reached my current “skeptical” view of AGW in the same way as you have reached your view.”
Most of the people posting and reading here have done no research in climate. That includes me, although I have done research in physics and elerctrical engineering. If 97% of active researchers in climate science are unanimous that AGW is real, I think the burden of proof falls heavily on them to explain why they believe the opposite. So far, most of the reasons I have seen don’t compute scientifically.
“In the end, we can’t modify physical reality. The best we can hope for is reasoned progress toward understanding what that reality is. Accepting that someone who disagrees with you may be motivated by the best of intentions is not easy, but is necessary for constructive communication. Or, as Mr. Obama said “We will extend you our hand if you will unclench your fist.” I offer you a constructive dialog.””
Attributing motivations is not part of any argument that I make about Lindzens scientific reasoning being wrong. However if people are going to claim bad motivations for others, like Lindzen does in the last 3 paragraphs of the opening post, they should be prepared to have their motives questioned as well.
timetochooseagain says:
I have to admit that I found Lindzen’s take puzzling since it disagrees with what I have seen said by others in the field. However, then I read his last paragraph in Section 2 of that paper:
In fact, I think that others in the field would say that the amplification seen in the models is dominated by this “tendency”…and, in fact, where the greenhouse gases do their absorbing is essentially irrelevant to the temperature structure (because the tropical atmosphere is quite well-mixed by convection). As evidence of this, one can point to the fact that different mechanisms of warming (such as an increase in solar irradiance, or simply fluctuations in temperature due to ENSO or other effects) show similar amplification in the models as one goes up in the tropical troposphere (and, in the case of the fluctuations, this is verified in the real world).
I think Lindzen’s claim that the moist adiabat explanation “does not alter any of the above arguments” is disingenuous. It makes an important alteration in that it no longer allows one to point to the (supposed) lack of such observed amplification as suggesting the mechanism causing the warming must be something other than greenhouse gases!
First of all, it is not an issue of satellite vs surface temperature data as much as an issue of over what timescales the satellite and radiosonde data is reliable and what timescales it isn’t. And, the deal is this: the up-and-down fluctuations over timescales of months to a few years are quite reliable in both these data sets because they occur over times short enough that there should not be any significant drift. However, the multidecadal trends are less reliable because of significant potential artifacts that can contaminate them. For the satellite data, this has to do with various issues, with one being the intercalibration between the different satellites that have been used over time. For the radiosonde data, it has to do with changing instrumentation and, in particular, with the fact that there has been a general improvement in shielding of the temperature sensor over time (which tends to produce a cooling artifact to trends for daytime measurements). As I noted, the fact that there are problems with the satellite data set for the tropics is evidenced by the fact that the UAH and RSS trends for the tropics still differ fairly significantly from each other.
Eric:
As a starting point in a constructive dialog:
1. “All working scientists agree that CO2 doubling without any other feedback or changes in forcings will increase the average temperature 1C if nothing else happens.”
Agreed, it is a direct consequence of how a ~255K black body responds to changes in radiative heating.
2. “In addition, in Permian times CO2 from Siberian volcanoes has been determined to have caused a global warming event which impacted the oceans.”
Agreed, although potentially different conditions on Earth in the Permian and uncertainty about the volcanic emissions may make it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about Earth’s response to CO2 (and other infrared absorbing gases) today.
Do you agree with the following statements:
1. The wide range of effective blackbody emission temperatures (each temperature with a different expected radiative sensitivity) across different latitudes and across different seasons makes the “1C for a doubling of CO2” sensitivity value not a very useful number, in that it may not accurately represent the correct climate sensitivity in the absence of any climate feedbacks, negative or positive.
2. Given that a) the basic “1C for a doubling of CO2” may not be correct, b) that there are many plausible climate feedbacks (negative and positive) operating over a range of temporal scales, and c) that the climate is clearly chaotic over very short to at least multidecade temporal scales, determining a reasonably accurate value for the climate’s sensitivity to forcing is a difficult problem that requires a lot of good data, collected over a time period that is comparable to the range of chaotic variation, along with careful analysis.
3. Substantial differences in estimates of climate sensitivity will inevitably lead to substantial differences in expected future warming, and substantial differences in the perceived urgency of acting to reduce emissions of CO2.
If you can’t agree with the above statements, then please explain why.
rephelan says:
Your statement of my credentials is correct. I would just add a couple of things:
(1) I really try not to be “obnoxious”. However, it is frustrating when I post something and someone quotes like one or two sentences of it and goes off in some direction of responding to a “strawman” version of my argument when reading the whole thing would make it clear that I wasn’t saying what they are claiming that I said. (It is also frustrating when people continually repeat things like the greenhouse effect violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics that are just very, very wrong.) Sorry if this frustration sometimes makes me say something snarky; I’m trying to avoid that.
(2) I don’t claim that my PhD in physics alone makes me knowledgeable in climate science, as there are lots of specialized knowledge to learn in each field of science these days. And, I am sure that Richard Lindzen has probably already forgotten more atmospheric science than I will ever know; however, this is all the more reason why I find it frustrating to see him make an argument that at the end of it he sort of admits may not be totally correct but that this isn’t really relevant (as he does in the paper that timetochooseagain linked to)…when in fact, I think it changes the nature and strength of his point quite a bit. Anyways, I’m still learning and one of the advantages of posting comments here on WUWT is that it provides me with the incentive to go and read up more in the climate science literature on various issues.
Joel Shore (14:24:26) :
This post is an enormous improvement. I invite you to joint in a constructive dialog with eric and me (see above).
You are welcomed to reply to my three statements if you want.
Joel Shore (13:45:06) : Here is your chart with offsets applied. I have reason to doubt GISS so it is no comfort that RSS slope matches GISS or even HADcrut for that matter. UAH might well be the right one AFAIK. I have not had much time to look, but I don’t find similar charts for tropical LT.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/trend/offset:0.14/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/offset:0.11/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/trend/offset:-0.005/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend/offset:-.1
“It is not a huge difference…but it is a difference”
Of COURSE there is a difference. There basically HAS to be a difference. Data from different sources that are “adjusted” differently by different people will result in different results. Note that while the various points differ VERY slightly from each other, the overall trends match.
Now when NOAA’s and GISS’s product is compared to either satellite, the difference grows over time and even trends recently in opposite directions. So the satellites tend to validate each other while they tend to invalidate NOAA, GISS and HadCRUT.
I believe one major difference is that there are no atmospheric surface air temperature readings over more than 2/3 of the surface of Earth and some of those data sources want to use ocean temperatures as some sort of proxy for air temperature over the ocean while the satellites measure the actual temperature of the atmosphere over the oceans. Ocean surface temperature are more a function of wind speed than air temperature. Increased trade winds result in lower tropical sea surface temperatures. You can experience that first hand (so to speak) by dunking your hand in water, placing it in front of a fan and turning the fan on. Fan on = cool surface, fan off = warmer surface, in both cases the air temperature was the same.
It would be highly suspect if both RSS and UAH both produced exactly the same result every month because they are using different data sampled at different times by different equipment with different groups of people using different methods of reaching the result.
eric (13:51:54) : “There is also an documented element of his personality that he is a non conformist. ”
1. You supply no documentation of this and
2. being a non-conformist in science is a good thing. Science is one field where thinking outside the herd can get you a new way of looking at something.
Joel Shore (14:24:26) :
I get a little torqued when someone uses innuendo to answer argument. I did ask the same question but the took the time to find out before shooting my mouth off (and perhaps some other portion of my anatomy!) and was impressed with the result. I take your views seriously and would be honored to buy you a beer if you find yourself in the New Haven area. We can solve climate science over a pizza at Sallie’s.
@ savethesharks (06:54:44) : and @ Thomas J. Arnold. (11:11:16) :
It does chafe, doesn’t it. 🙁
I imagine you’ve heard the old joke about the various parts of the body arguing about which should be in charge? And which part won the argument. It wasn’t the brain. 😉
On the other hand, I would no more want to live in a “Technocracy”, than I would in a “Theocracy”, or any other social structure that had only one narrow view of “Life, the Universe and Everything”, where the answer is always “42”.
The body politic, as with the body biological, survives thru cooperation and recognition of the functions of it’s various parts.
rephelan (15:37:21) : “..find yourself in the New Haven area. We can solve climate science over a pizza at Sallie’s.”
Pepe’s!!!!!!!
“For the satellite data, this has to do with various issues, with one being the intercalibration between the different satellites that have been used over time. For the radiosonde data, it has to do with changing instrumentation and, in particular, with the fact that there has been a general improvement in shielding of the temperature sensor over time (which tends to produce a cooling artifact to trends for daytime measurements).”
Now who’s disingenuous? Apart from RSS, which has an obvious up step in about 1992 relative to all the other data sets (surface, ‘sondes, UAH, everything) these issues have long ago been addressed. I dared you to come up with a real reason why the satellite products might be wrong-you come up with a difference between RSS and UAH and, as if the data sets were equal, you declare that problems “must remain”-yes, RSS is warm biased. That hardly resolves the issue as RSS actually marginally shows the amplification.
And of course the reliability of surface data matters! Amplification is relative to the surface!
“James (08:30:42) :
hehe,
“Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth.”
So 97% of climatologists are part of a major government conspiracy involving all western governments. A conspiracy that has been perpetuated across several terms of office involving different parties. The single bastion of truth is a professor completely untainted by the massive amount of consultancy money he receives from oil companies.
It does seem likely.”
You really can’t be that faulty in your reasoning. You’re either a troll, or lazy.
Follow the money. It doesn’t matter what political party you’re a member of, you need money to fund programs. The latest budget calls for some $900B of funds from C02/CapnTrade mechanisms and fees.
He’s not “the single bastion of truth”…and you know this, so why make the statement?
JimB
eric (11:00:23) : You might wish to actually read what I wrote. Okay, so you aren’t lying, you are ignorant. I never said people don’t try to incorporate these effects, I said they aren’t MEASURED! AND THEY AREN’T! JEEZ.
Jim (14:38:18) :
“eric (13:51:54) : “There is also an documented element of his personality that he is a non conformist. ”
1. You supply no documentation of this and
2. being a non-conformist in science is a good thing. Science is one field where thinking outside the herd can get you a new way of looking at something.”
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_contrarian/?page=all
“Lindzen’s status as a pariah may also be attributable to his success at portraying himself as the principled underdog, a David against the Goliath of the scientific mainstream. In his recent statements, especially, Lindzen rails against what he sees as a conformist and self-reinforcing “iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers” with a “vested interest in alarm.”
“If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don’t always agree with the consensus,” said Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, a former student of Lindzen’s at MIT. “You show you’re right and everyone else is wrong.”
He certainly enjoys showing he’s right and everyone else is wrong,” Kirk-Davidoff continued. “If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that.””
Going against the herd can indeed lead to a discovery that others miss. If overdone, it can lead to saying a lot of stupid stuff and going off in the wrong direction. This seems to have happened with the so called “Iris effect”.
Hurray! Finally some people are thinking & not doing knee jerk responses to the media. If you haven’t seen the documentary “The Great Global Warming Hoax”, get the torrent, download it, watch it, share it. It’s chocked full of facts from academia. Actually things should be cooling down. The sun has gone into a sort of dormany period with little or no sunspot activity.
We need to tell everyone aound us about the big hoax of “man-made global warming”. The powers that be are using this hysteria to gain more control over our lives & wants us pay dearly for energy. I think we need to get off so-called “fossil fuels”. There are so many realy good alternatives, which doesn’t include big business.
More sense on climate alarmism:
APS is reviewing its statements on climate change
Listen to this article.
Climate alarmism is a particularly embarrassing attitude for professional institutions that should represent disciplines with very high intellectual standards because climate alarmism is associated with extremely poor intellectual (and ethical) standards, besides other negative characteristics.
The American Physical Society (APS) was therefore embarrassed on November 18th, 2007 when its bodies approved an alarmist statement that was much more constructive and issue-oriented than the statements of many institutions outside physics but it was still a scientists’ variation of the same blinded, biased, irrational hysteria.
It shouldn’t be surprising that members around Will Happer, a renowned Princeton physicist, wrote an
Open Letter to the American Physical Society
where they mention that the climate has always been changing and warming and trace gases have many positive effects, according to scientific literature. The proposed new statement also discusses the unreliability of the existing climate models and urges the scientists to investigate all these effects objectively, and to study technological options related to the climate that are independent of the cause.
The petition has been signed by
more than 50 well-known past and current APS members.
Add your name if you are one, too.
Happily, Nature just published a letter from six members that informs that the APS is currently reviewing its 2007 statement:
Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change
By S. Fred Singer, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, Roger Cohen & Robert H. Austin
We write in response to your issue discussing “the coming climate crunch”, including the Editorial ‘Time to act’ (Nature 458, 10771078; 2009). We feel it is alarmist.
We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society (APS) who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change (see open letter at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u; APS statement at http://tinyurl.com/56zqxr). The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.
On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/aps-is-reviewing-its-statements-on.html
What’s the point of quoting an article which had no other purpose than bad-mouthing Dr. Lindzen?
eric:
Do you not want to have a constructive dialog? I wrote three straightforward statements about the Earth’s climate and asked if you agreed with them or not, but you gave no reply.
timetochooseagain (17:02:06) :
“eric (11:00:23) : You might wish to actually read what I wrote. Okay, so you aren’t lying, you are ignorant. I never said people don’t try to incorporate these effects, I said they aren’t MEASURED! AND THEY AREN’T! JEEZ.”
I agree that I misread your post.
However, aerosals, solar output, and clouds are measured. In the case of solar proxies are used for the era prior to measurements. Some of the measurements are not consistent and complete. The results of these measurements are included in climate models and provide some of the scatter in results.
If you want to claim the measurements result in uncertainty that would be valid, but to claim they don’t exist is wrong.
This has no bearing on my argument, that Lindzen’s claim that the temperature data of last few years of global warming are the source of the belief that AGW is acting, is false.
“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
History shows that the movement to stop global warming began IN 1979 before global warming became evident.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/pages/the-1979-jason-report-quot-carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment-quot.aspx
Political sense on the Climate Bill:
Waxman Marley, The disaster that passed Congress when America was a sleep!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=be342540-802a-23ad-40aa-7b48f706c77b
Steve Fitzpatrick
I agree with your 3 statements.
There are a lot of posts on this thread and I have been busy with other things.
Why?
And… name two “realy good alternatives”.
(Oh… and “wind” and “solar” are not really good. Nuclear is… but, hey, I just did half of your assignment for you.)
@ Ron de Haan (17:57:53) :
Political sense on the Climate Bill:
Waxman Marley, The disaster that passed Congress when America was a sleep!
Excellent! Thanks for the heads up. I’ll definitely be watching this. I hope Inhofe is wearing a flak jacket, ’cause a lot of folks will be out to get him.
eric makes lots of unsupportable statements. Just a few of many examples:
“The greenhouse effect is 150 years old this year. The theory that industrial emissions would warm the planet dates from 1896. Spectroscopic observations and observations of the atmosphere confirm that increases in CO2 will warm the planet. All working scientists agree…”
But the planet itself contradicts those fictitious “all working scientists,” because as CO2 steadily rises, the global temperature continues to decline.
CO2 may have a very small effect, but it is clearly so insignificant that it can be disregarded. Also, referring only to Arhennius’ 1896 paper is either disingenuous or ignorant, because Arhennius corrected himself [something the alarmist contingent never seems capable of doing] in 1906.
Arhennius’ original paper claimed a much higher climate sensitivity number [although not so high as the UN/IPCC’s fantastically high numbers]. His major correction ten years later drastically reduced his climate sensitivity number — but it was still far too high, as the planet is now proving. Next…
“Before the seventies, there are no observations of solar irradiance…” click. Someone has been observing solar irradiance, even if it was through a proxy. Scientists didn’t just discover the sun in 1970. Then…
“With the world population close to carrying capacity…”
Based on what?? Wishful thinking? Because it feels good to say it? Because belief trumps reason? Ever since Thomas Malthus stated exactly the same thing, everyone who has repeated that canard has been flat wrong.
Finally, I suppose it’s really cool to denigrate others for ever mentioning the word “conspiracy.” Those dismissing with a wave of the hand any possibility that two or more people might conspire to game the system for their own benefit are hopelessly naive.
With literally $Billions flowing into climate alarmists’ pockets at the mere mention of “global warming,” there is a strong motivation to work the system for the benefit of the few, and at the expense of being impartial. As Adam Smith wrote in 1776:
In the current situation, it is the rent-seeking grant hounds who are gaming the system to line their pockets with taxpayer loot. Anyone who doesn’t see that is blind or deluded. To exist, a conspiracy doesn’t need bylaws and monthly meetings. A wink and a nod are sufficient.
rephelan says:
Thanks. Sounds good to me…Any scientific discussions are better with pizza and beer! (And, I’d do likewise if you ever make it out Rochester-way!)
eric (17:14:27) : “Jim (14:38:18) : “eric (13:51:54) : “There is also an documented element of his personality that he is a non conformist. ””
IMO, at the end of the day the focus should be on the science, not personalities.
timetochooseagain says:
Well, I know that Spencer and Christy have published some papers attempting to show that the major difference that remains is due to a problem with RSS. And, while you may have decided which data set to believe, I don’t think the scientific community as a whole has reached any such conclusion.
It is also useful to go back and look at the whole history of the satellite data. When Spencer and Christy first published, they claimed to show the temperature trend in the lower troposphere was actually negative…i.e., there was no warming. Then, after corrections and a longer data record, it became “less warming than in the surface record”. Then, after more corrections and the publication of the competing RSS analysis, it became “the same amount of warming globally as in the surface record, within the error bars…but a discrepancy (lack of expected tropospheric amplification) in the tropics.” Now, there has been a lot of work trying to understand what is going on in the tropics … It is not completely resolved yet, but given the history, it seems wise not to jump to conclusions. The fact is that if you are never going to accept AGW as long as there are any unsolved puzzles, you are never going to accept it period, because in science there is always data that is not understood and in some seeming contradiction with the current theory.
And, as I like to continually stress, while the issue of the tropical tropospheric amplification is not completely resolved, claiming it as some sort of direct test of whether the current warming is due mainly to greenhouse gases or not is wrong since the prediction of such amplification by the models seems to be basically independent of the warming mechanism.
eric (17:41:28) :”History shows that the movement to stop global warming began IN 1979 before global warming became evident.”
There you go again, Eric. This has nothing to do with the science. Who cares if someone or some group was trying to bury global warming decades ago. Obviously, it didn’t work so it does not matter even if true. You seem to be here to cast emotional aspersions rather than discuss the science.
eric (18:07:41) : “I agree with your 3 statements.”
Thank you for replying. So we agree on:
1. The wide range of effective blackbody emission temperatures (each temperature with a different expected radiative sensitivity) across different latitudes and across different seasons makes the “1C for a doubling of CO2″ sensitivity value not a very useful number, in that it may not accurately represent the correct climate sensitivity in the absence of any climate feedbacks, negative or positive.
2. Given that a) the basic “1C for a doubling of CO2″ may not be correct, b) that there are many plausible climate feedbacks (negative and positive) operating over a range of temporal scales, and c) that the climate is clearly chaotic over very short to at least multidecade temporal scales, determining a reasonably accurate value for the climate’s sensitivity to forcing is a difficult problem that requires a lot of good data, collected over a time period that is comparable to the range of chaotic variation, along with careful analysis.
3. Substantial differences in estimates of climate sensitivity will inevitably lead to substantial differences in expected future warming, and substantial differences in the perceived urgency of acting to reduce emissions of CO2.
Do you agree with the following three statements?
4. Ocean heat accumulation in the top 700 meters is a reasonable measure of overall global radiative imbalance at least over a few decades or less, and outside of measurement errors and known seasonal (annual) variations, the heat accumulated in the top 700 meters provides a very good measure of any global warming that has taken place over a specified period.
5. The peer-reviewed published calculations of total ocean heat content in the top 700 meters of ocean (based mostly on calibration corrected Argo temperature data) from 2003 to present range from a very slight increase to a modest fall, suggesting that since 2003 there has been no significant radiative imbalance.
6. High climate sensitivity (that is, substantially more than 1C increase in average surface temperature for a doubling of CO2) is only consistent with a substantial lag (many years) between applied radiative forcing and the ocean’s thermal response. On the other hand, low climate sensitivity (in the range of 1 C or less increase for a doubling of CO2) is only consistent with a relatively short lag (at most a few years) between applied forcing and the the ocean’s thermal response.
I don’t belong here…I’m aware of an upper tier of climate skeptic scientists who publish, who have my respect.
But, I’m always willing to learn. And here’s a lead on the idea that all of the recent warming has come out of the oceans.
“Recent work (Tsonsis et al,2007) suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century”.
But I find a mathematical paper by mathematicians that finds synchronicity between four indices: PDO,NAO, ENSO and NPO. Its certainly a laudable pursuit, and they found order in the chaos… but I (In the parts I could understandJ) saw no mention of BTU’s…or of total ocean heat content.
And the authors, to my understanding, claimed only a partial effect. They concluded:
“…suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970’s event to a different state of a warmer climlate, which may be superimposed on an anthrogenic warming trend.”
And when I look into the ocean heat content (Argo) issue I find…maybe its warming…or maybe its cooling…which doesn’t leave enough heat left over to account for post 1975 global warming (to have passed through).
As I’ve said before, skeptics should be presenting their own explanations for the post 1975 warming. I’ve been generous in these pages: it should involve water vapor and clouds. If not cosmic rays, something with a similar effect. (Maybe ignoring the area between Hawaii and Mexico.)
Or, argue The Mystery. Not of the ice ages, or the movement of glaciers; which we can explain. Discuss what we don’t know about the past…and why we don’t know what’s happening now.
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
Here is what I would say:
Statement #1: From what I know, I don’t think I would agree with it. I.e., I think there is some uncertainty in that “bare” sensitivity value but my impression is that the uncertainty is on the order of maybe +-20% at most.
Statement #2: I agree with most of it, but I still think that there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to a sensitivity is in the range of ~2 C to 4 C. Yes, values lower or higher than this can’t be excluded but they do seem less likely based on our current understanding of the climate and the paleoclimate data.
Statement #3: I pretty much agree with it but I would say that, while there is a distribution of urgencies depending on the climate sensitivity, I would say that distribution is centered around doing about what the consensus of the scientific community seems to believe is necessary (as opposed to the extremes of what Hansen seems to think is necessary…i.e., getting back down to 350ppm…and what those who essentially don’t believe it is a problem think is necessary, i.e., having no restrictions.) This middle course of action is also the one that will allow us to either ratchet up or ratchet down our emissions cutbacks as future science gives us more certainty.
eric (17:41:28)
After a rather torturous journey following your link to an interesting paper titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” and produced in 1979 (a copy of which can be obtained here: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181&page=1
(just click on the sign-in tab on the left, fill in a short form with your e-mail and zip code, and you will be allowed to download the paper)
The Preface to the document contained the following:
“We also had the benefit of discussions with a number of other scientists in
the course of the review. We wish to thank the following individuals for their
helpful comments:
R.S.Lindzen, Harvard University
C.G.Rooth, University of Miami
R.J.Reed, University of Washington
G.W.Paltridge, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization (CSIRO), Australia
W.L.Gates, Oregon State University”
It would appear, Eric, that Dr. Lindzen was there at the beginning and I would venture to suggest that he would have a better understanding of the currents and issues of his discipline than you do. One, two or a dozen papers from last century do not prove Dr. Lindzen false. Might I suggest you would want to be a bit more temperate with your remarks and a bit more thorough in your scholarship. Develop a sense of perspective instead of trying to play “gotcha”.
By the way, thank you for the lead to the paper.
Joel Shore (18:58:46) :
Hi Joel,
With all respect, what events, if they were to occur, would you consider to be clear evidence of refutation of the following notions.
[1] That man made emissions of CO2 are causing global warming, and
[2] That warming caused by man made emissions of CO2 will be catastrophic.
I.e. what are the falsification criteria?
Thanks G.
Tom in Florida (16:38:34) :
Ahhh, the eternal, burning question of the 20th century, carried over into the 21st: Pepe’s or Sallie’s? Sallie’s or Pepe’s? Why choose? Both are distinctive, tasty and better than anything made anywhere else. After all, American Pizza was invented in New Haven.
Joel Shore (18:58:46) :
‘And, as I like to continually stress, while the issue of the tropical tropospheric amplification is not completely resolved, claiming it as some sort of direct test of whether the current warming is due mainly to greenhouse gases or not is wrong since the prediction of such amplification by the models seems to be basically independent of the warming mechanism.’
I agree, any input of heat near teh surface surface in the tropics would have the same effect as greenhouse gases. And I agree that there is always noise/drift/doubt in any very long term data set (weather balloons from 1960 for example). But I think this all begs the real issue: essentially all the GCM’s predict that radiative forcing in the tropics will increase tropospheric humidity, leading to warming in the troposphere that is substantially greater (up to several times) the warming observed near the ground, and this large tropospheric warming is clearly not supported by the data.
Yes, it is true that if you critically assess the satellite and balloon data and assign very conservative (generous) error bars to both the climate models and the measurements, as the modelers already have published, you can’t statistically prove (at >95% confidence) that the models are in conflict with the data. But any reasonable person should agree that the best estimates of tropospheric warming from the models are not at all close to the best estimates of warming from the data. If I were looking at my own model output and saw that kind of discrepancy, I would be very cautious in claiming my model is an accuate description of reality. After all, even if the data say the models are “only” 80% or 85% likely to be wrong, it would be prudent to at least consider that there may be significant problems with the models.
A very reasonable alternative explanation is of course that the true net radiative forcing (including positive feed backs) is substantially less than the models assume. If I were working on these models, that is what I would be considering right now. But I doubt they are considering this alternative explanation.
Joel Shore “The fact is that if you are never going to accept AGW as long as there are any unsolved puzzles, you are never going to accept it period, because in science there is always data that is not understood and in some seeming contradiction with the current theory.”
HUH? Wow. Circular reasoning in progress.
Smokey….you around? Help me here…LOL.
“And, as I like to continually stress, while the issue of the tropical tropospheric amplification is not completely resolved, claiming it as some sort of direct test of whether the current warming is due mainly to greenhouse gases or not is wrong since the prediction of such amplification by the models seems to be basically independent of the warming mechanism.
What warming mechanism?
The LIA recovery warming mechanism?
The ENSO / PDO /AMO (or any combination thereto) warming mechanism?
Al Gore’s warming mechanism?
What?
Joel Shore (19:31:12) :
Wow, you are talking about apples and I am talking about bananas.
“Statement #1: From what I know, I don’t think I would agree with it. I.e., I think there is some uncertainty in that “bare” sensitivity value but my impression is that the uncertainty is on the order of maybe +-20% at most.”
I made no comment about how much the true “bare” sensitivity might vary from 1C per doubling of CO2. A quick look at how much long wave radiation escapes at different latitudes indicates the full range may be considerably much more than +/-20 % in total, but this does not say what the weighted average would be; I was only trying to note there is considerable uncertainty, even in this most basic number.
“Statement #2: I agree with most of it, but I still think that there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to a sensitivity is in the range of ~2 C to 4 C. Yes, values lower or higher than this can’t be excluded but they do seem less likely based on our current understanding of the climate and the paleoclimate data.”
I said nothing about what the sensitivity actually is. From where comes your pronouncement of 2-4 degrees? And how is that connected to the statement I actually made?
Statement #3: I pretty much agree with it but I would say that, while there is a distribution of urgencies depending on the climate sensitivity, I would say that distribution is centered around doing about what the consensus of the scientific community seems to believe is necessary (as opposed to the extremes of what Hansen seems to think is necessary…i.e., getting back down to 350ppm…and what those who essentially don’t believe it is a problem think is necessary, i.e., having no restrictions.) This middle course of action is also the one that will allow us to either ratchet up or ratchet down our emissions cutbacks as future science gives us more certainty.
I said nothing about what the actual climate forcing is and the consequent perceived urgency for action based on that forcing. The question is: do you agree that the perceived urgency for action depends on the perceived climate sensitivity? I said nothing about specific actions or suggestions by anyone or about the consensus opinion of what actions are needed.
I am really trying to take this exchange in small steps, while you seem to only want to talk about a conclusion. Staring with a conclusion (about which we will clearly disagree) makes it impossible to understand where there is technical agreement and disagreement.
Joel Shore says: “…while the issue of the tropical tropospheric amplification is not completely resolved…”
In other words: “Let’s be bipartisan, guys. Just trust us, and here, let me hold your wallet for you.”
Climate alarmists need to prove their case. So far they’ve come up short.
Those folks need to understand that the unmeasurably small forcing that additional CO2 may add to the planet’s temperature is clearly overwhelmed by other causes. The effect of CO2 on the planet’s temperature can be disregarded as insignificant.
Because the first CO2 molecules made the biggest difference, even doubling its concentration from, say, 4 parts in 10,000 to 5 parts in 10,000 will cause only minuscule warming.
eric (17:41:28) : Read AGAIN-the measurements from before the seventies don’t exist for any of those things, again PERIOD. And again, there is no continuous measurement of TSI-only several different series which must be stitched together subjectively. Given the insistence by your pal Joel that stitching satellites together makes UAH wrong, it’s funny you ignore the issue…
And Tom is an ambulance chasing idiot, linking to him greatly diminishes your credibility-suggesting to me that your thinking ability is similarly impaired.
Joel Shore (18:58:46) : “:Well, I know that Spencer and Christy have published some papers attempting to show that the major difference that remains is due to a problem with RSS. And, while you may have decided which data set to believe, I don’t think the scientific community as a whole has reached any such conclusion.”
Not just them but several others. The fact is that the “scientific community as a whole” has an opinion which is frankly worth less than zero.
“It is also useful to go back and look at the whole history of the satellite data.”
Your not arguing for prudence, your arguing for dismissing the data because it has been wrong in the past! Give an actual reason why its wrong damn it! The issues have largely been resolved and unless you can come up with another flaw to be accounted for, you are simply full of $#!%.
Joel Shore (19:31:12) : “I pretty much agree with it but I would say that, while there is a distribution of urgencies depending on the climate sensitivity, I would say that distribution is centered around doing about what the consensus of the scientific community seems to believe is necessary (as opposed to the extremes of what Hansen seems to think is necessary…i.e., getting back down to 350ppm…and what those who essentially don’t believe it is a problem think is necessary, i.e., having no restrictions.) This middle course of action is also the one that will allow us to either ratchet up or ratchet down our emissions cutbacks as future science gives us more certainty.”
I’ve had it. You are obviously politically biased toward wanting a massive restructuring of society along your favored lines. If you can’t understand how much more disastrous the proposed policies are than even a thousand million billion degrees of warming then…
I’m done.
Don’t give up, timetochooseagain.
The burden of proof is on his[Joel’s] back…not yours.
Prove it Joel. Show the incontrovertible evidence.
You can not….because there is none.
So you have to cloak everything that you say with two more sentences of padding.
Pure textbook sophistry.
Show the evidence.
Show it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
“But how did the warm water get below the cold without makingthe cold warm?”
You know sonar guys have a lot of trouble if they are trying to find something in the ocean due to different temperatures and salinity that come in layers.
Of course if they are trying to stay hidden it helps.
Bravo Lindzen,
How very well put!
“..the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth..” Any evidence pointing against catastrophic anthropogenic global warming comes up against a stone wall of “scientific consensus” and “the time for talking is over”.
“..inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data….That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community”
Instead of implausible I would say unscientific and totally dishonest!
“Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is … ” besides being asinine, a recipe for catastrophe!
savethesharks (21:17:39) : People have tended to notice that my temper is rather short. I myself get depressed about this fact quite often.
And certain things set me off. Shore revealing his political bias infuriated me. At least someone without any reason to hold to a erroneous view can be spoken to without them revealing their orientation towards particular policies as the reason for their incessant clinging.
Thomas J. Arnold. (11:17:08) :
20% Doh! should use number pad.
Actually it was very funny as posted. A keeper.
Sorry, maybe I’m wrong, but from reading the above it seems that the AGW hypotheses requires that the average temp of atmosphere controls the average temperature of the oceans? In other words the AGW crowd believe that the ’98 “super El Nino” was caused by CO2 warming the atmosphere and in turn warming the oceans? I believe this is manifestly wrong. How much more massive is the thermal inertia of the ocean vs that of the atmosphere? Surely the oceans receive the overwhelming majority of this heat, or energy, from sunlight falling upon its surface not from radiated heat from the atmosphere? Now my understanding is that the ’98 El Nino was the clearest expression of the “warming climate” so if it cannot have been caused by CO2 then the AGW argument is essentially falsified?
Again, to believe in AGW you have to believe that the temperature of the atmosphere controls the temperature of the oceans. Think about it.
There may be other ways CO2 effects the climate. Maybe it affects the opacity of the atmosphere? But that is not an AGW argument.
Thinking about the arctic ice cap, has been determined whether it is the ambient air temperature that melts the ice in summer… or something else? Say the water temperature under the ice?
Again, if it is water temperature it would nothing to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere (see my post above).
If CO2 “traps” heat what is the effect on average ocean temps when CO2 is outgassed as a result of oceanic temperature increases? I.e. does the CO2 content of the oceans effect their retention of heat? If not, why not? Once the CO2 levels of the oceans drops due to outgassing, does that cause the oceans to cool down due to the loss of this “greenhouse” gas?
Steve Fitzpatrick(14:09:04):
“All working scientists agree that CO2 doubling without any other feedback or changes in forcings will increase the average temperature 1C if nothing else happens.
Agreed, it is a direct consequence of how a ~255K black body responds to changes in radiative heating.”
Could you point me in the direction of the original calculation of 1oC please would be interested in seeing it.
Thanks for the chart Joel. Reminds me of a second hand car salesman talking up the charms of the nodding dog in the back window while keeping a hand firmly over that darn rust spot.
Can you do the same trick but over, say, a 1,000 years?
Joel Shore (13:45:06) :
Steve says:
Spouting this kind of BS make you lose your credibility. UAH and RSS agree very well. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/uah/from:1980
It starts at zero and ends at zero, with lots of natural variation in between. Also the scales are very handy: what does 0.2° feel like?
Try doing a linear trend through the data ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend ). You will find that the trends are somewhat different. It is not a huge difference…but it is a difference…and as you can see, it is significantly larger than the difference in trends over the same time period between RSS and either of the surface records. (What matters here are the slopes…The offsets are due to different base periods.)
And, as I noted, I believe that the tropics only data shows significantly more difference in trends.
I have to agree that Joel is wasting his degree. He is here to argue that we should ACT NOW – the models hint that something is amiss and needs to be fixed. We can’t wait until the science is in – WE MUST ACT NOW TO SAVE THE PLANET … WOE is ME!!!
Rehplan,
The fact the Lindzen was consulted as part of the Jason report does not contradict the fact that the roots of the current idea that climate change due to CO2 emissions are based on theoretical physical calculations, through this report, rather than as a result of recent temperature changes.
It makes his statement even more bizarre, since he should know better.
In addition to the Jason report there was the Charney report, and James Hansen’s paper and testimony in 1981. None of these were arguments for AGW based on any past accumulated temperature changes. The projection of global warming, and its regional effects were based on modeling.
Steve Fitzpatrick
Sorry that I didn’t get to your points in any detail sooner.
I was a little hasty in my agreement with your points.
Here are some comments, which may duplicate replies that others have made.
1) The significance of the 1C number is that it shows that GHG’s are a real forcing factor. There are some AGW skeptics that deny this is the case, despite the fact that it is accepted by all climate scientists, including the tiny minority who say that other factors provide negative feedback to make this insignificant.
2 and 3) )I don’t believe that the basic 1C number may not be correct. It just is not the complete story. It is a kind of hypothetical number. I agree that there are feedbacks and other forcing factors that are significant. The range of values derived by many different climate researchers indicates that including these factors gives a number 1.5-4.5C and even higher than that .
4)Ocean heat, which is hard to measure accurately is a good index. The ocean absorbs about 80% of the incident energy that is absorbed by the earth and has 70% of the area.
5) Ocean heat measurements require very careful painstaking research, and the values up to 2003 have been corrected by different researchers many times over. They are still working on 2003 to the present, and the numbers you quote are likely to change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html
6) I am not familiar with the theory that climate sensitivity correlates with lag.
It isn’t obvious to me. I do believe that the large variations in climate from year to year, compared to the long term trend, is an indication of high climate sensitivity.
I agree that there are feedbacks and other forcing factors that are significant. The range of values derived by many different climate researchers indicates that including these factors gives a number 1.5-4.5C and even higher than that .
Unless, of course, it turns out that the feedbacks are negative rather than positive. And the recent evidence (AquaSat, etc.) has been pointing in that direction. If correctly interpreted, one set of data can refute “many different climate researchers”.
Ocean heat measurements require very careful painstaking research, and the values up to 2003 have been corrected by different researchers many times over. They are still working on 2003 to the present, and the numbers you quote are likely to change.
So far, first change was to throw out the coldest readings. The second change was to sub in non-ARGO readings with a known warm bias. And there is still a slight cooling.
I understand that there are problems inherent in raw data. But I begin to suspect that the problems regarding adjustment procedures are greater still–particularly when raw data access is denied and adjustment procedures are tightly concealed.
evanmjones (07:02:42) :
“I understand that there are problems inherent in raw data. But I begin to suspect that the problems regarding adjustment procedures are greater still–particularly when raw data access is denied and adjustment procedures are tightly concealed.”
Absolutely. As an analogue, I have done a lot of work on old oil well logs. At some stage during the drilling of an oil well a series of electronic tools are run in the hole to measure physical properties of the rocks. These include, for example, natural gamma radiation, the speed of sound, the density and the resistivity of the rocks. These days all the data is recorded digitally but older wells – say before around 1980? – were logged by analogue tools and the data recorded on photographic film.
These older well logs have since been digitised and errors in digitisation are very common. (On one data set I worked with, which was purchased from a national government, there was not a single well without errors. And this was a western first world country.!) It is essential to have original data at hand in order to check the digitised data. If the data can’t be checked it is effectively worthless.
Note that these errors were all genuine errors: Log digitising isn’t the most exciting of pastimes! (Although I always found it to be somewhat therapeutic!)
James (01:35:19) :
‘Could you point me in the direction of the original calculation of 1oC please would be interested in seeing it.’
You can Google it, but I can save you some time.
An approximate value for climate sensitivity in the absence of any feedbacks, positive or negative, can be estimated from the change in blackbody emission temperature that is required to balance a 1 watt per square meter increase in heat input, using the Stefan-Boltzman Law. Assuming solar intensity is 1366 watts/M^2, and assuming the Earth’s average albedo is ~0.3 (it might be a little higher or a little lower), the net solar intensity averaged over the whole of the Earth’s surface is ~239 watts/M^2, requiring a blackbody (Stefan-Blotzman) emission temperature of 254.802 K to balance incoming heat. This characteristic emission temperature corresponds to some altitude in the troposphere, which is of course much cooler than the Earth’s surface do to the thermal lapse rate. The characteristic emission temperature is where infrared emission (on average) actually heads off into space. At altitudes below this level, infrared emission of course takes place, but is mostly re-absorbed by the atmosphere above it. With 1 watt/M^2 more input, the required blackbody emission temperature increases according to Stefan-Boltzman to 255.069, so the expected climate sensitivity is (255.069 – 254.802) = 0.267 degree increase for one watt per square meter of added heat. This can be directly related to the effect expected for doubling of CO2, since doubling CO2 will effectively increase radiative forcing by ~5.35 LN(2) = ~3.71 watts per square meter. So the “bare” climate sensitivity, as Joel Shore calls it, to a doubling of CO2 is about 3.71*0.267 = 0.991 degree C; or in round numbers, a 1C increase for a doubling of CO2. Calculating an exact value for the blackbody sensitivity requires that you take the first derivative of equilibrium blackbody temperature with respect to applied heating rate, but the above approximation using a 1 watt per square meter step change in applied heat is very close to correct.
Of course, even calculating a single “bare sensitivity” is a terrible oversimplification, since the sun’s heat is not applied uniformly over the entire surface. The characteristic emission temperature varies with latitude, season, region, albedo, and weather, and consequently, so must the “bare” sensitivity to forcing, since sensitivity depends on characteristic emission temperature. The point is that even in the absence of (often disputed!) internal feedbacks (like ‘net positive cloud feed-back’), it is no simple task to determine a true “average sensitivity”.
eric (06:45:02) : “I am not familiar with the theory that climate sensitivity correlates with lag.”
That’s funny, since Hansen wrote a paper about this in 1985.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/229/4716/857
Dang it! Anthony, can you or a moderator dig that last comment out of the spam bucket for me? Thanks.
eric (06:45:02) :
‘The significance of the 1C number is that it shows that GHG’s are a real forcing factor.’
I already agreed that the “bare sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2 should be in the range of 1C, which comes from Stefan-Boltzman and the expected forcing (~3.7 watts per square meter) for a doubling of CO2. No need to convince me of this.
The point of my original #1 was that there is at least some uncertainty in even this theoretical “no feed-back” climate sensitivity value, and determining the correct no-feedback value is itself a non-trivial task. I am not sure now if you agree with this or not.
‘2 and 3) )I don’t believe that the basic 1C number may not be correct. It just is not the complete story. It is a kind of hypothetical number. I agree that there are feedbacks and other forcing factors that are significant. The range of values derived by many different climate researchers indicates that including these factors gives a number 1.5-4.5C and even higher than that .’
I purposely did not suggest any range of values for final sensitivity, because I really want only to understand where we agree and disagree on how one ought to arrive at a reasonable range for net sensitivity. That we might honestly disagree on the correct range of final sensitivities (and/or the credibility of different published estimates of climate sensitivity) is not terribly informative; what matters is how we arrive at those different conclusions. I arrive at my expected range of credible climate sensitivity based on my (critical) analysis of the data, publications, and theoretical information that I have been able to read over the last couple of years. If you have done something similar, then a dialog really ought to be constructive. If on the other hand you believe that the IPCC’s range of sensitivities (or some similar range, as you wrote above) simply because you believe that the “consensus view” of climate scientists (or at least those that contribute to the IPCC projections), is the most credible based on the background/experience of the scientists involved, then there may not be a lot for us to discuss.
‘5) Ocean heat measurements require very careful painstaking research, and the values up to 2003 have been corrected by different researchers many times over. They are still working on 2003 to the present, and the numbers you quote are likely to change.’
I agree that ocean heat measurements, like all climate measuremnts, require careful research, and there have been several significant revisions of past estimates, especially those based on the more limited data from pre-Argo days. There was one significant revision in the Argo data (not ‘many times over’), due to a problem with a small sub-set of the Argo bouys made by a single manufacturer. This problem was identified by Josh Willis, and he showed that the incorrect data lead to lower than correct heat estimates… until the problem was identified. The Argo group has identified and flagged the faulty bouys, and no more faulty bouys are being placed. All recently published analyses of the Argo data (including that of Josh Willis et al) have excluded the suspect data. It is this corrected data that shows little or no net ocean heat accumulation. If you know of other significant revisions to Argo data I am not aware of, then please tell me about them. In addition, at least two groups have used satellite measurements of total ocean mass and sea level to independently verify that there has been very little or no thermal expansion of the ocean starting in ~2003, consistent with the Argo measurements. For me, 3000+ heat profiles collected every few days, with data that is being carefully monitored/checked for quality by the Argo group, independently verified by other means, represent the most reliable ocean heat data that has ever been available. In light of this, do you believe that Argo’s lack of increase in total heat in the top 700 meters is probably not correct? If so, why do you think that?
‘6) I am not familiar with the theory that climate sensitivity correlates with lag.’
Fore example:
Bell, T. L.: Climate sensitivity from fluctuation dissipation: some
simple model tests, J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 1700–1707, 1980.
Cionni, I., Visconti, G., and Sassi, F.: Fluctuation dissipation theorem
in a general circulation model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31,
L09206, doi:10.1029/2004GL019739, 2004.
There have been a number or recent publications saying essentially that with a less than perfectly known lag profile (that is, a less than perfectly known profile of lags with different temporal scales), you need a huge amount of data (up to hundreds of years!) to extract accurate information about climate sensitivity, and such data does not exist. I noted that these objections to FDT analysis were published very quickly after a couple of publications based on FDT concluded that the existing data suggest a relatively low climate sensitivity, in conflict with GCM’s. These objections to FDT all rely upon the behavior of GCM’s to cast doubt on the results of analyses of real data; as a scientist, I find this most distressing, since they seem to me to have the process upside down.
I still haven’t seen any discussion on whether or not anthropogenic GHG warming properties (or solar forcing for that matter) are additive to natural temperature pattern variations or are simply buried in it. There are many things in nature that when combined, are not additive in the strict sense. Is this one of them?
eric (06:13:28) :
Eric, the term I am going to use here is “disingenuous” rather than the one which starts with the same three letters but keeps getting snipped on this site when I try to use it.
Let’s put this in perspective. We would not be having this conversation if the temperatures had not risen since the late 70s. In fact, those of us who were alive and sentient then were pretty sure that the Coming Ice Age Alarmism (much like Club of Rome neo-Malthusian disaster) was over-blown and that it was a good bet that temperatures would rise. So they did, but that hasn’t stopped some researchers from investigating what causes Ice Ages and some alarmists (even here, on occasion) from screaming we have to take action now. In twenty years we will probably have some other argumentative troll insisting that the fight against global cooling started way back in the middle of the last century.
Eric, Dr. Lindzen never stated or even implied that a concern with CO2 and climate was the result of the last few years of warming (ignoring the fact that over the last few years it hasn’t warmed!) rather that the hysteria of people like yourself has been fueled by very minor changes that have been hyped to support predictions of Apocalypse Now. You’ve set up a straw man and valiantly hacked away at it. I call that dis… err, “disingenuous”.
Now that you’ve got my undivided attention, for the moment, I’d like to address your rather naïve theory of politics:
“As a matter of fact, climate change has the opposite characteristics of an issue attractive to politicians.”
Eric, the issues of revenues and social control have always appealed to the State, its agents and various special interest groups. Putting in place mechanisms to control CO2 is the Statists wildest dream. If you have any doubts about the lengths people will go for control, look at North Korea, which has turned every social institution, including the family and religion, into an arm of the State. A bit closer to home, read Michel Foucault, whose intellectual origins are very close to those of the Greens, and get his take on what modern society has already become.
R.E. Phelan
timetochooseagain (08:39:27) : Even in the 1985 paper, Hansen does not prove the climate sensitivity. After he creates “yet to be realized warming” out of whole cloth, he then tries to engender fear in an attempt to influence policy. He should have been fired right there on the spot. The man is all about influencing government policy and could give a damn less about the science.
“The factors that determine climate response times were investigated with simple models and scaling statements. The response times are particularly sensitive to (i) the amount that the climate response is amplified by feedbacks and (ii) the representation of ocean mixing. If equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3°C or greater for a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration, then most of the expected warming attributable to trace gases added to the atmosphere by man probably has not yet occurred. This yet to be realized warming calls into question a policy of “wait and see” regarding the issue of how to deal with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other trace gases.”
Pamela Gray (11:09:25) :
I still haven’t seen any discussion on whether or not anthropogenic GHG warming properties (or solar forcing for that matter) are additive to natural temperature pattern variations or are simply buried in it. There are many things in nature that when combined, are not additive in the strict sense. Is this one of them?
No way to really know, since the linearity (if you will) of the climate system is not known. There are many processes involved, and they almost certainly vary in linearity. Over relatively small ranges (a few watts change in total forcing, a few degrees temperature change), most people probably expect roughly additive effects, but in cases where extreme (and very non-linear) changes are suggested (eg. a “tipping point”), very wild responses are usually supposed.
Urederra (06:13:03) :
Try Eppure, si rinfresca.
Jim (12:41:07) : I link because Hansen makes the straight-forward argument that climate response time is closely related to the ocean’s mixing and the sensitivity-this is NOT an endorsement of Hansen’s actual estimates. Frankly, I happen to think that the climate responds rather rapidly to perturbation, implying much lower sensitivity.
For a skeptical take on the same issue which more or less agrees with Hansen about the relation between sensitivity and response time but disagrees about the implications, see:
R.S. Lindzen and C. Giannitsis (1998) On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 5929-5941.
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/184_Volcano.pdf
timetochooseagain:
I am not arguing for dismissing the data. I am sure scientists will continue to work to better understand both the data and models and to what extent they disagree on this issue and why. That is as it should be. (Unfortunately, however, I think it is rather difficult to come up with ways to remove the tropospheric amplification from the models at multidecadal timescales while keeping it at the monthly-to-yearly timescales where the data definitely shows it occurs.)
However, I do not believe in elevating this data above all other evidence, as you seem to want to do. I also don’t believe in selectively deciding which data set to use when there are two that disagree and there has been no generally-accepted resolution to the issue.
Perhaps you are looking in the mirror when you see strong political bias. After all, your pseudonym itself expresses what I presume are some strongly-held political beliefs. On the other hand, my views are well within the mainstream of scientific thinking on the issue, reflecting those of the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, pretty much all of the relevant professional organizations of scientists (APS, AMS, AGU, …). Are all of these groups infected with the same political bias?
@Steve Fitzpatrick
Thanks.
From the conviction with which you made the initial post about the 1oC rises I assumed you were citing some article which had investigated the matter. I doubt Google would result in the information I wanted but I could of course search the journals I just thought you knew one already as I good place to start.
You calculation can be simplified as radioactive forcing would increase by ~3.71 watts per square meter which you can put into the Stefan-Boltzman equation and get a 0.983oC increase. I was interested in where the forcing number came from but your right I’ll look it up.
By the way why’d model the temperature increase per watt/sqM as a linear relationship when the real calculation was easier and make the warming less? Not that it makes a lot of difference just thought it odd.
On 24 July 2009 BBC Hard Talk presenter, Stephen Sackur, published a balanced report on the Greenland ice sheet to be found at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8167209.stm. His report stated for example:
“The answer does not seem to be entirely straightforward. ”
and
“The Ilulissat glacier has indeed retreated dramatically in recent years – more than 15km in the last decade alone – but plenty of evidence suggests such rapid change in the ice is not unprecedented.”
and
“So when the more excitable climate campaigners claim that Greenland’s ice sheet – which contains roughly 10% of the world’s fresh water – is “melting” and that catastrophic rises in sea level can be expected within a century, it is advisable to take a deep breath and ponder the complexities of the ice.”
On tonight’s BBC1 News at 10.00 there was a report from Sackur with all the balance removed and nothing but warmist propaganda. Watts Up at the BBC?
Joel Shore (14:05:19) : 1. What is it you think you know about my pseudonym?
2. “On the other hand, my views are well within the mainstream of scientific thinking on the issue” And that a bunch of people agree with you is significant…how?
3. “Are all of these groups infected with the same political bias?” You don’t even seem to get what you said that set me off! Have all those groups advocated for “policy” or “doing something”? If so, well, yes, they are politically biased. Because frankly, that’s advocacy, not science.
Joel-It’s clear to me-and I think many others-that you have little interest in exploring the possibility that [snip] be wrong. And I think it is pretty obvious why (not that it matters). The point is that you aren’t worth talking to if you are so damn inflexible.
Reply: No accusing people of religious behavior directly. This is allowed in the abstract, but it is disrespectful to imply that that someone you are debating is arguing from faith rather than logic. ~ charles the moderator
timetochooseagain (15:51:31) : I would also note that I have never to my knowledge said anything WRT policy other than how outrageous I found it that you were openly exposing you political motivations. You on the other hand actually read bias into my name.
Please explain to me how “I pretty much agree with it but I would say that, while there is a distribution of urgencies depending on the climate sensitivity, I would say that distribution is centered around doing about what the consensus of the scientific community seems to believe is necessary (as opposed to the extremes of what Hansen seems to think is necessary…i.e., getting back down to 350ppm…and what those who essentially don’t believe it is a problem think is necessary, i.e., having no restrictions.) This middle course of action is also the one that will allow us to either ratchet up or ratchet down our emissions cutbacks as future science gives us more certainty.” Is not a political, rather than scientific, statement (other than the fact that you apparently think that scientists, when taken “as a whole” (provided they agree with you of course!) should make the political decisions-which is the most un-democratic thing I’ve ever heard)?
James (14:06:59) :
Not sure what you mean by radioactive forcing. A more exact calculation for sensitivity of the temperature of a radiating blackbody to change in applied energy is (assuming I hit the right keys on my calculator):
dT/dE = (4.4092X10^6)/T^3
Where T is the blackbody tremperature in Kelvins, and E is the energy being radiated in watts per square meter. For a blackbody of 255K, this works out to 0.2659 degree per watt/M^2, or 0.986 degree for a doubling of CO2. I don’t know of any publications about this…. maybe from back in the days of Stefan.
James (14:06:59) :
Just to be clear: As far as I am aware the “about one degree per doubling of CO2” came from this simple blackbody calculation, rather than some more detailed analysis. If you find a more sophisticated analysis that reached the same value by some other means, then please let me know.
timetochooseagain says:
Well, here are some of the various statements:
Academies of the G8+5 countries: http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=5450
AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml
APS: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
You tell me if you think they cross over the line in your view. And, on the other side, what about statements by “skeptical scientists” whether they are speaking out to the Canadian government, the U.S. Congress, or writing editorials in the Wall Street Journal?
As for scientific vs political statements, sure, any statement that advocates for certain policies technically has some political component to it. I mean, technically speaking, a scientist advocating, say, a policy to intercept a huge asteroid that would likely hit the earth and cause cataclysmic destruction would be mixing in some values along with science. If he wanted to stick only to science, he would just describe the consequences of such an impact and describe the possible technologies that could be used to avert it just in case the value judgement is made that this is a good thing to do. However, I don’t think that people would think it too presumptuous of the scientist if he did mix in the value that he thought cataclysmic destruction was a bad thing.
So, are you saying that scientists should never be allowed to make such statements? Do you find Richard Lindzen’s pieces to be completely free of all value judgements or political statements?
And no, I don’t think scientists should make the policy decisions. I think that such decisions should be made through a democratic process. However, I think scientists should inform the debate on the policy decisions. And, occasionally this may go beyond speaking purely of the scientific issues. In fact, I have no trouble with Richard Lindzen expressing some of his policy views even though I don’t agree with them. Rather, where I get testy is when I think he is distorting the science. (And, that I think is the real problem…when scientists let their own personal values distort their view or explanation of the science. And, I don’t think this is completely unavoidable, i.e., it is not possible for any human to be completely “objective”. But, I think it is still important to strive to be as objective as one can about the science.)
timetochooseagain: Maybe your objection to my statement “I would say that distribution is centered around doing about what the consensus of the scientific community seems to believe is necessary…” is that you are wondering “necessary for what”? If that is the problem, I would say that I mean how much cutback in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (which is a goal that nearly all nations signed on to in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to in Rio in 1992, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Convention ). Of course, admittedly, that phrase is itself is vague enough that it has both scientist and value-laden components.
Joel Shore (14:05:19) :”Perhaps you are looking in the mirror when you see strong political bias. After all, your pseudonym itself expresses what I presume are some strongly-held political beliefs. On the other hand, my views are well within the mainstream of scientific thinking on the issue, reflecting those of the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, pretty much all of the relevant professional organizations of scientists (APS, AMS, AGU, …). Are all of these groups infected with the same political bias?”
1. So you really don’t believe a political organization can’t influence the people on its payroll?
2. Since when did Mother Nature operate from consensus?
Joel Shore (17:20:20) :
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
I agree that Lindzen certainly mixes some politics with his science; I think much less than James Hansen, but comparable to the folks over at Real Climate.
Were I disagree with you is that Lindzen is “distoring the science”. I have read many of his published papers and listened to several of his oral presentations; I have seen no evidence of willful distortion or deceit. His arguments (whether you agree with him or not) are reasoned and consistent. That is not to say that he never made a misstatement due to innocent mistake or poor choice of words (for that matter, I know nobody who has not done these things), but to accuse him of willful misrepresentation seems to me a bit much.
Joel Shore (18:58:46) :
(Asking again… for the 2nd time)
Hi Joel,
With all respect, what events, if they were to occur, would you consider to be clear evidence of refutation of the following notions.
[1] That man made emissions of CO2 are causing global warming, and
[2] That warming caused by man made emissions of CO2 will be catastrophic.
I.e. what are the falsification criteria?
Thanks G.
Graeme Rodaughan (18:32:43) :
I think you are asking the wrong questions. Your definition of warming that is “catastrophic” is likely very far from Joel Shore’s definition.
Like most divisive political issues, debates on AGW mix a little bit of fact with a whole lot of personal values. People who want to move aggressively to curb CO2 emissions uniformly believe they are adopting the morally correct position, just like those who oppose any aggressive actions. For example, if you knew for sure that adopting draconian reductions in CO2 emissions could reduce global warming by 0.3 C over 60 years, but the resulting decline in economic growth would leave a billion people very poor over the next two generations, would it be best to adopt these CO2 reductions, or best to concentrate on economic development and reducing poverty and all the ills that come with it? Given this kind of choice, I think people come to honestly different conclusions, not based on the facts of the situation, but based on their personal values and morals.
I doubt that any discussion of the facts of AGW will change anyone’s mind. If you want to see this clearly, read a comment thread or two at Real Climate (don’t leave a comment, or you will be either ‘snipped’ or likely told 10 times you are a troll and an idiot). But if you just read the comments, you will see a huge amount of very sincere moral support for what Real Climate does. There is little real discussion of technical issues, and dissent is most unwelcome. Any scientist who disagrees with the GCM’s (Lindzen, Pielke Sr. or Jr., or any other) is routinely accused in the comment thread of being morally corrupt, a liar, or worse, and any published data that seems contrary to the GCM’s is shouted down as irrelevant, an outright misrepresentation, or simply wrong. The focus of the discussion at Real Climate is moral/political/social; all human influence on Earth’s climate (no matter the size) is morally bad.
I am close to the rather sad conclusion that discussion of AGW is pointless.
Steve Fitzpatrick,
“There have been a number or recent publications saying essentially that with a less than perfectly known lag profile (that is, a less than perfectly known profile of lags with different temporal scales), you need a huge amount of data (up to hundreds of years!) to extract accurate information about climate sensitivity, and such data does not exist. I noted that these objections to FDT analysis were published very quickly after a couple of publications based on FDT concluded that the existing data suggest a relatively low climate sensitivity, in conflict with GCM’s. These objections to FDT all rely upon the behavior of GCM’s to cast doubt on the results of analyses of real data; as a scientist, I find this most distressing, since they seem to me to have the process upside down.”
I was not aware of this literature. With the aid of google I have located a recent paper on this subject.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/813/2009/acp-9-813-2009.pdf
The author does say the same thing in his abstract, but adds two important statements to what you said.
2) The FDT says that for a shorter time series, the climate sensitivity will be underestimated.
3)The addition of a second resevoir weakly coupled to the first aggravates the tendency to underestimate climate sensitivity
This would apply to the ocean, where the deep ocean which has a large heat capacity is weakly coupled to the upper layer which absorbs the heat in from the sun in a relatively short time frame. This explains the error that Schwartz 2007 made in his underestimate of climate sensitivity as 0.3K/W/M2 versus the more generally used estimate of 0.75K/W/M2.
This paper sheds a lot of light on this subject and is worth a careful read.
Joel-we have irreconcilably different views about the role of science in society. Whatever.
timetochooseagain (20:27:51) : “Joel-we have irreconcilably different views about the role of science in society. Whatever.”
Joel has a degree in Physics, yet appeals to authority (IPCC, etc.). He is not here to discuss science. He is here to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Joe Shore:
The points I wanted to make were twofold:
1. The published attacks on FDT analyses all rely on the assumed correctness of the GCM’s. That is, they use the model (set up with assumed characteristics of complex ocean lags and high climate sensitivity), calculate a long “simulated climate history”, and then apply FDT. The FDT “results” on their simulated data do indeed show what you note, but the credibility of the whole exercise depends on assuming the accuracy of the climate models. An example of circular logic if there ever was one.
2. Whenever ANY data analysis is published which appears to conflict with the results of GCM’s, the reaction of researchers involved with CGM’s is swift and consistent: the results are quickly described as “not consistent with accepted climate theory” (which I assume means GCM’s) and discounted as “probably incorrect”. In cases where the data is too credible to ignore, within a couple of months one or two modelers, along with one or two researchers who work with them, publishes a paper based on “simulated” GCM model outputs, pointing out that a) the real data is either too noisy or unreliable to yield the conclusions drawn by the original author, and b) given the enormous variation in the data, in the model runs, and between models, it is not possible to statistically prove that the models are not correct at 95% confidence. Where possible, they throw in some odd alternative analysis of the real data (wholly unsubstantiated, except by model simulations) which makes the models look right. Once again, the entire publication is an exercise in circular logic… the models are right because the models are right. I have seen the same sequence of events several times in the last few years alone; if you look, you will see this pattern too.
The modeler’s reactions are more like you would expect if someone was attacking thermodynamics instead of a complex computer model that is for certain a less than perfect representation of the Earth’s climate.
Based on my work in science over 35 years, I find this whole process bizarre. Data should guide theoretical constructs like models, not the other way around. You can’t uncritically accept some data because it agrees with your construct (like extremely uncertain estimates of aerosols drastically reducing net forcing) and reject what does not. Poor scientist in every field fight strenuously against conflicting data (and sadly, I have seen this many times), good ones accept it and try to understand it. What goes on with GCM’s seems to me quite crazy, and increases the chance that the GCM’s are not being critically evaluated and so are grossly in error.
Joel Shore:
One final point before I must do some real work: If you discount the very uncertain (according to the IPCC) aerosol effects that are used in GCM’s to substantially reduce net forcing, then the mid-1800’s to present temperature history is predicted almost perfectly by the historical record of greenhouse gas concentrations, converted to expected (IPCC again) radiative forcing, multiplied by Swartz’s “discredited” constant of ~0.3 C/watt/M^2.
Does this not give you even a bit of doubt about the GCM’s? If not, then I really do not understand how you evaluate data.
Steve,
There are people on both sides of the AGW question who say stupid stuff.
They may believe the stuff they say, but if I were running a web site that tried to enforce high standards in the discussion, I wouldn’t allow people to repeatedly rant and say stupid stuff, like human emissions are not responsible for CO2 etc..
Looking at RealClimate’s comment sections, I do see some skeptics post. They are addressing the issues with some science behind them.
Conspiracy theories and other stuff are kept off. I find that it does elevate the discussion.
The topical posts by scientists are informative in my opinion. I am glad that they take the time to explain their research to the general public. A large number of different scientists are invited to post.
Most of the posts here are by amateurs, which are not as valuable in my opinion.
Steve Fitzpatrick (07:22:42) :
said,
“Joel Shore:
One final point before I must do some real work: If you discount the very uncertain (according to the IPCC) aerosol effects that are used in GCM’s to substantially reduce net forcing, then the mid-1800’s to present temperature history is predicted almost perfectly by the historical record of greenhouse gas concentrations, converted to expected (IPCC again) radiative forcing, multiplied by Swartz’s “discredited” constant of ~0.3 C/watt/M^2.
Does this not give you even a bit of doubt about the GCM’s? If not, then I really do not understand how you evaluate data.”
It is clear that part of the effect of anti pollution efforts in the 1970’s is the reduction of aerosals. This is evident in the ice cores taken in the Peruvian Andes .
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0405/04.html
It is clear from such measurements that significant reductions in sulfate aerosals need to be taken into account in understanding climate change.
It is also clear that the industrialization of China and India may have increased the sulfate pollution in the last decade and could be responsible for moderation of the rate of temperature increase. None of this is as ridiculous and suspicious as you seem to believe.
Eric:
Albert Enistein had no advanced training in physics, and before changing everyone’s understanding of the world, made a living reviewing patent applications. I guess that made him an amateur. Francis Crick was trained in physics, but helped revolutionize biology.
I have worked with, worked for, and had work for me both brilliant (really insightful) BS level engineers and incredibly incompetent PHDs, including one PHD who is pretty well known. My personal experience is that credentials and position are at best weakly correlated with technical competence. When I was young, I would never have believed this.
Graeme Rodaughan: I think your question about falsification criteria is an overly simplified, binary way of looking at things. I know of no complex modern theory in science whereby one can come up with a single falsification criterion. Moreover, what you speak of are not really independent theories but part of the larger rubric of our current understanding of climate.
The normal way that science proceeds in the real world is that when there is observation data that seems to conflict with a theory that already has a significant body of evidence supporting it, then people try to reconcile them by looking at both the data and theory. If they can’t be reconciled and enough such problems exist, then people start to abandon the theory for other theories that provide a better explanation.
There are many tests that AGW has already passed on the way to becoming part of the accepted current theoretical understanding of climate. For example, when it was first proposed by Arrhenius, many scientists doubted that CO2 would actually accumulate in the atmosphere from our emissions (because they thought the oceans would just absorb it) and it wasn’t until the 1950s when both Keeling’s data and Revelle’s theoretical analysis showed that the CO2 was and is expected to accumulate. A more recent example is the water vapor feedback … i.e., some questioned whether the water vapor, especially in the upper troposphere would increase with warming as the models predicted. Again, the evidence from satellite data has now shown that it indeed does. Another example is the satellite and radiosonde data showing that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms this data (unlike the data regarding tropical tropospheric amplification on multidecadal timescales) is unambiguous enough that the signal seen is much greater than the measurement uncertainties.
Future things to watch:
(1) The debate over cloud feedbacks…If it becomes clear from multiple studies (that scientists in the field have had time to consider and respond to) that the cloud feedback is negative, then this would cause a major modification to the current theoretical understanding.
(2) If there is a negative temperature trend maintained for enough years that it is clearly statistically significant then that would require a major rethinking of the current theoretical understanding.
(3) Paleoclimate: If there was new evidence from paleoclimate data that significant altered our estimates of climate sensitivity based on past climatic events, then that would require modification of our theoretical understanding.
I am sure that one can think of several more. Despite protestations of some skeptical, mainstream scientists are all the time devising various tests of our current understanding of the climate system.
Steve Fitzpatrick:
I think that you were responding to eric here, not me. But, I would just add that I don’t think it is really correct to say that the exercise depends on the accuracy of the climate models. What the climate models are being used for is just a testbed whereby one can see how well an analytical technique is able to diagnose the climate sensitivity. The advantage of looking at this in the models is one knows what the “right answer” is, again within the model. I suppose it is conceivable that a technique that does not diagnose the sensitivity well in the models could do a better job in the real world, but that seems rather unlikely…If anything, it seems to usually work the other way around (i.e., that the real world is more complicated than one’s models, so a technique that works for the models does not work as well in the real world).
Eric:
Yes, published estimates of aerosols (including satellite based) suggest a significant worldwide decline from the 1980’s to present, including the post 2000 period of relatively flat temperatures and post 2003 period of flat ocean heat content. I know of no credible data (real data, not model projections) which suggests China’s increased use of coal (which began ramping up in the early 1990’s) has reversed this worldwide trend in apparent brightening. The estimates of continuing brightening until the present, if anything, increase the apparent discrepancy between modeled temperature increases and recent surface temperature and ocean heat content data.
Have you noticed that RSS’s TLS trend (/www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html) graphic is very similar to the satellite based estimated trend in aerosols (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerosol_dimming.jpg)? Could a significant portion of the of the falling TLS trend actually be due to globally falling sulfate aerosols? If so, could the negative slope in the TLS tend (a commonly sighted proof high climate sensitivity from greenhouse gases) in fact be partially due to falling sulfate aerosols rather than 100% from greenhouse driven warming in the lower troposphere?
My point is that none of the claims of high climate sensitivity are so clear, neat, and certain as you suggest. GCM Modelers ought lower the hubris level and increase the level of caution.
eric:
And some of us think that the assumption that rising CO2 can only be from human emissions is “saying stupid stuff”.
Yes, we’re emitting CO2, and the planet is perfectly able to absorb many times what we are emitting. And if I pee in the ocean, is that the cause of it rising? Wouldn’t it be childishly naive to assume so?
Joel Shore (12:07:56) : ”
(1) The debate over cloud feedbacks…If it becomes clear from multiple studies (that scientists in the field have had time to consider and respond to) that the cloud feedback is negative, then this would cause a major modification to the current theoretical understanding.
(2) If there is a negative temperature trend maintained for enough years that it is clearly statistically significant then that would require a major rethinking of the current theoretical understanding.
(3) Paleoclimate: If there was new evidence from paleoclimate data that significant altered our estimates of climate sensitivity based on past climatic events, then that would require modification of our theoretical understanding.
”
I just want to applaud the effort to shoot down AGW. It is the mark of a good scientist to be his own severist critic. The pro-AGW scientists should be the first to think of ways they could be wrong and list those possibilities in public.
Steve Fitzpatrick (09:59:33) :
“Eric:
Albert Enistein had no advanced training in physics, and before changing everyone’s understanding of the world, made a living reviewing patent applications. I guess that made him an amateur. Francis Crick was trained in physics, but helped revolutionize biology.”
The idea that Einstein was an amateur whose primary job in the patent office is a canard, that I have heard from other climate sceptics, when I mention the fact the few professional research climatologists dissent form support of AGW.
Einstein’s job at the patent office paid the bills while he was studying for his doctorate. He was seeking a job teaching physics to pay the bills but anti-Semitism prevented him from getting such employment. He would normally take his physics to work, and work on it whenever his supervisor wasn’t looking.
Crick was also no amateur biologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
After World War II, in 1947, Crick began studying biology and became part of an important migration of physical scientists into biology research. This migration was made possible by the newly won influence of physicists such as Sir John Randall, who had helped win the war with inventions such as radar. Crick had to adjust from the “elegance and deep simplicity” of physics to the “elaborate chemical mechanisms that natural selection had evolved over billions of years.” He described this transition as, “almost as if one had to be born again.” According to Crick, the experience of learning physics had taught him something important—hubris—and the conviction that since physics was already a success, great advances should also be possible in other sciences such as biology. Crick felt that this attitude encouraged him to be more daring than typical biologists who tended to concern themselves with the daunting problems of biology and not the past successes of physics.
For the better part of two years, Crick worked on the physical properties of cytoplasm at Cambridge’s Strangeways Laboratory, headed by Honor Bridget Fell, with a Medical Research Council studentship, until he joined Max Perutz and John Kendrew at the Cavendish Laboratory. The Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge was under the general direction of Sir Lawrence Bragg, who won the Nobel Prize in 1915 at the age of 25. Bragg was influential in the effort to beat a leading American chemist, Linus Pauling, to the discovery of DNA’s structure (after having been ‘pipped-at-the-post’ by Pauling’s success in determining the alpha helix structure of proteins). At the same time Bragg’s Cavendish Laboratory was also effectively competing with King’s College London, whose Biophysics department was under the direction of Sir John Randall. (Randall had turned down Francis Crick from working at King’s College.) Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins of King’s College were personal friends, which influenced subsequent scientific events as much as the close friendship between Crick and James Watson. Crick and Wilkins first met at King’s College and not, as erroneously recorded by two authors, at the Admiralty during World War II.
“I have worked with, worked for, and had work for me both brilliant (really insightful) BS level engineers and incredibly incompetent PHDs, including one PHD who is pretty well known. My personal experience is that credentials and position are at best weakly correlated with technical competence. When I was young, I would never have believed this.”
I don’t care what degrees people have. If they are doing work in the discipline at a professional level, and publishing in respected peer reviewed journals, they have more credibility than an amateur.
rephelan (19:44:22) : “Ahhh, the eternal, burning question of the 20th century, carried over into the 21st: Pepe’s or Sallie’s? Sallie’s or Pepe’s? Why choose? Both are distinctive, tasty and better than anything made anywhere else. After all, American Pizza was invented in New Haven.”
Pepe’s, always was, always will be.
http://thepauperedchef.com/2007/09/new-haven-pizza.html
Steve Fitzpatrick,
You asked for evidence that the ocean heat data since 2003 is still under active consideration. Check out the final page of this article published Nov 2008.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
“In this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],” said Domingues, “but also because the problems with the newest Argo data—the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.”
Steve,
I do not have the background material and data behind this report, but apparently there are some scientists who claim Asian Brown Clouds are masking the Greenhouse effect. See bullet 5 on page 18 of this report.
http://www.unep.org/pdf/ABCSummaryFinal.pdf
The report says 20 to 80% of GHG induced warming is canceled by ABC’s.
Eric,
With regard to the accuracy of Argo and closure of the sea level budget: http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf show clearly that the sea level budget for 2003 to 2008 does close, and there is little reason to doubt the Argo based calculation of total ocean heat changes. In their conclusions they wrote:
“From the results presented in this study, we see that confronting
independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level
with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent
years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea
level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/−0.4 mm/yr)
somewhat reduced compared to the 1993–2003 decade (3.1+/
−0.4 mm/yr). Over 2003–2008, the GRACE-based ocean mass has
increased at an average rate of ∼1.9 mm/yr (if we take the upper range
of possible GIA corrections as recommended by Peltier, submitted for
publication). Such a rate agrees well with the sum of land ice plus land
water contributions (i.e., GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance
estimated in this study, GRACE-based land waters plus recently
published estimates for the current glacier contribution). These results
in turn offer constraints on the ocean mass GIA correction, as well as
on the glacier melting contribution.
The steric sea level estimated from the difference between
altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over
2003–2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year
period (2003–2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the
order of 0.3+/−0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study
and Willis et al., 2008).”
Since Cazenave, Willis has confirmed (both through publication and informally) that while further unknown errors in Argo data may exist, the currently accepted Argo data yields a best estimate range for change in heat content between very slightly positive to slightly negative over the past 5+ years. At least one other group has independently published satellite based ocean mass/altimeter confirmation of the Cazennave conclusions.
The NASA website story about Willis’ discovery of the problem with Argo data relates events that took place well before Cazenave et al, Willis (2008), or other recent publications… yet it is still being used by many to cast doubt on the Argo data, even though the problem it refers to was resolved. I am surprised that NASA does not update this web page to reflect the whole story (that the Argo problem was identified and suspect data discarded). The best available data, reported in multiple peer reviewed publications, shows little or no increase in heat content in the last 5+ years, and NASA ought to convey that information to the public, rather than suggest that ocean heat content is very uncertain (and so may still be increasing). NASA is clearly misrepresenting of the state of the field. It is simply not accurate to suggest, as you seem to with your reference to the NASA story, that current Argo based ocean heat content data lacks credibility.
With regard to the Asian Brown Cloud, you appear to have completely missed the point of my earlier comment. Of course there are regions where aerosol effects have increased due to increased burning of fossil fuels, especially coal. These regional “brown clouds” for certain have significant regional effects. Acid rain in the northeastern USA and Canada, before SO2 emissions from power plants were regulated, is one example of such a regional effect. However, the existing data suggest that worldwide total aerosol effects began to decline in the 1980’s and have continued to do so. Reduced worldwide aerosols and consequent “brightening of the sun” have been suggested by some climate scientists to have contributed significantly to the increase in the rate warming in the 1990’s. Fair enough, but then the continued fall in aerosols (and continued brightening) after 2000 makes the recently flat average temperature and ocean heat content more surprising. This is the point that I hoped you would address.
It is clear to most everyone that greenhouse gases cause radiative forcing, and it is clear that this forcing must cause some increase in the Earth’s average temperature. What I and many others doubt is that the historical temperature data, greenhouse gas data (including ice core concentrations), and other relevant climate measures are consistent with very high climate sensitivity and the resulting projections of large temperature increases (eg 1.8C to >5C) over the next 100 years (and of course I also doubt the associated projections of melting of Greenland, widespread death of corals, catastrophic “tipping points”, rapid sea level rises, etc.).
What the existing data do support is a likely range of 1.0 and 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2, if you assume that greenhouse gases have caused all warming since ~1800. This is nowhere near the IPCC range. It may be that reductions in emissions of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, which are much less costly to reduce per watt heating avoided) is a prudent course of public action, even for a climate sensitivity of 1.2C. But whatever action is taken ought to be based on realistic estimates of both costs and benefits. Grossly exaggerated estimates of future warming, which inflate the apparent benefits of rapidly reduced CO2 emissions, and so justify the high costs involved, ought not be the basis for making important policy decisions.
Or as I said earlier in this thread: The perceived urgency for action depends on the perceived climate sensitivity.
It seems that the anomalous changes were explained by melting ice which introduces cooler water to the ocean. Since this is fresh water and fresh water is lighter than salt water, could this be a sign that the sea surface is getting cooler, because the heating is concentrated at the poles and melting ice.
In the conclusions part the paper says:
“Fig4 Compares for the 2003–2008 period, the observed (from T/P
and Jason-1 altimetry) sea level curve (from Ablain et al., submitted
for publication) to GRACE-based ocean mass change (with a GIA
correction of 2 mm/yr) and total land ice plus land waters contribution
discussed above. We note that land ice plus land waters has
contributed for 75%–85% to recent sea level rise, i.e., significantly
more than during the decade 1993–2003 (Bindoff et al., 2007)”
As far as the ABC’s are concerned, I understand what conclusions you draw from the graph, but I interpret the statement of the effect of ABC’s on forcing as a global statement, not a regional one. Taken in that light there must be some data behind it, which must conflict with the graph that you show.
I don’t believe that this is a hoax. I admit that I haven’t looked at the full report to find the data.
Steve Fitzpatrick (07:31:24) : Thanks for that nice summary WRT Argo. It’s funny that when we get more accurate measurements from newer tech that does not agree with the hysterical interpretation of data, it gets buried or distorted. Public entities need be held responsible for the obfuscation and misrepresentations they continue to promulgate.
Eric,
What paper are you quoting? As far as I can see, you gave no reference.
I am quoting the paper you referenced which said the data since 2003 checks out.
It checks out because more glacial ice melted than was expected from previous years, and this explains the gap between ocean expansion and temperature.
Steve Fitzpatrick,
As I understand it, your main thesis is that climate sensitivity is much less than the IPCC says, and the variations we are seeing in climate is primarily due to natural variations. This variation is significant.
There is an inconsistency in your position as Swanson, coauthor of the recent paper by Tsonis and Swanson, on natural variation of the earth’s climate, points out in his RealClimate blogpost:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/#more-686
“A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability. The opposite also holds. It’s painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause. Of course, both could be wrong if the climate is not behaving as a linear forced (stochastic + GHG) system.”
eric,
You do know that quoting realclimate is like trying to make a point about a question of astronomy by quoting an astrologer.
Oy Smokey don’t be rude about astrologers.
Remember the great Tycho Brae was astrologer and astronomer to the King of Denmark.
And his pupil one J Kepler worked out the motions of the neavenly bodies well before I. Newton, physics I invented it, was born.
There is nothing wrong with a good set of Tarot cards, they will predict the future climate far better than these computer models. Cheaper too, just cross my palm with silver.
PS No money refunded.
Kindest Regards
Smokey,
I am quoting one of the authors of the paper:
“Has the Climate Really Shifted”
http://www.uwm.edu/~
kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
His paper is often quoted by skeptics.
He was given a guest slot at RealClimate
eric:
Fig4 Compares for the 2003–2008 period, the observed (from T/P
and Jason-1 altimetry) sea level curve (from Ablain et al., submitted
for publication) to GRACE-based ocean mass change (with a GIA
correction of 2 mm/yr) and total land ice plus land waters contribution
discussed above. We note that land ice plus land waters has
contributed for 75%–85% to recent sea level rise, i.e., significantly
more than during the decade 1993–2003 (Bindoff et al., 2007)”
I did not even look at the text at first because you said it was form the “conclusions” section, which it clearly was not, so I assumed it was from a different paper. Now that I have read it, I honestly do not see any connection between what they said in the above paragraph (that is, most of the observed ocean level change came from increases in fresh water added to the ocean rather than from ocean expansion, consistent with independent measurements of glacial mass) and your comment:
“It seems that the anomalous changes were explained by melting ice which introduces cooler water to the ocean. Since this is fresh water and fresh water is lighter than salt water, could this be a sign that the sea surface is getting cooler, because the heating is concentrated at the poles and melting ice.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say above. Really, not a clue. What the authors did say was very clear:
‘On average over the 5 year period (2003–2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/−0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).’
Where of course “steric contribution” means expansion due to warming. Are you suggesting that the authors did not mean by the above statement that the thermal expansion was very small, or are you just suggesting that they are wrong? If you think they are wrong, please explain why.
With regard to: “The report says 20 to 80% of GHG induced warming is canceled by ABC’s.” Yes the report does say that, but it is a global reference, not specific to the cloud from Chinese emissions. The bulk of the report focuses on regional effects. The same (more or less) statement about “canceling” of greenhouse warming by aerosols is made in the most recent IPCC report, and earlier IPCC reports as well. This “canceled” global warming is the only thing that can account for the relatively modest warming (about 0.8C) that has actually taken place since 1850 if the IPCC estimates of high climate sensitivity.
You see, all the model projections depend on the least well defined and most uncertain of the radiative forcing factors: aerosol dimming that cancels much or most of the radiative warming from greenhouse gases. Even the IPCC says they are very uncertain (look at the uncertainty bars on the aerosol effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg). Take away most of the assumed aerosol dimming and the historical temperature data is only consistent with much lower climate sensitivity, which is only consistent with much shorter thermal lags in the ocean. The amazing thing to me is that even the well documented rapid stop in accumulation of ocean heat in 2003, which fairly well screams that the ocean lag period can’t be long (30+ years), and suggests again that climate sensitivity must be fairly low, is either completely ignored by modelers, or if they address it, they suggest the ocean heat data is not reliable (like the misleading NASA story on Josh Willis finding errors in Argo data… which the story neglects to note have long since been resolved). For modelers, anything which indicates low sensitivity just HAS to be wrong, because if it is NOT wrong then their models are. Sad really.
I have no idea where the issue short term variability (aka weather) came from, and I don’t see how it is relevant to the discussion that has taken place up to this point.
Steve Fitzpatrick,
What I am saying is the addition of cold water to the oceans, as a result of melting ice, has a net cooling effect on the oceans. The latent heat of fusion is being absorbed from the incoming energy flux without causing an increase in ocean temperatures. I expect that this would cause an underestimate of climate sensitivity if this is not recognized.
Since I am not an expert on aerosals, I can’t make a definitive judgment about where in the range of the aerosal forcings, the real forcing effect lies.
I suspect very few non specialists in the field have the knowledge to really discuss this intelligently. Judging from the discussion and the maps, adding up the regional effects to determine the net effect on the earth’s climate is a daunting enterprise.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/on_global_dimming_files/ICNAA%20Plenary%20Lecture.pdf
eric (16:00:44) : The paper in question has two authors-and one has a, shall we say, different view?
http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html
From timetochooseagain: http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html
Good lnk – some real science at last I think.
Couple of interesting paragraphs –
“In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,’ Tsonis said. ‘The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.’
“The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000. Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have? ‘But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said. Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.”
Tenuc and timetochooseagain,
You are indulging in the classic cherry picking method to make an argument.
It is clear that both Tsonis and Swanson agree that natural variation is masking a longer term trend.
http://conservativemeanderings.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/senators-debate-global-warming-policy-despite-global-cooling-evidence/
““The temperature has flattened and is actually going down,” Tsonis told CNSNews.com. “We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”
But Tsonis also said that neither he nor Swanson think their study undermines arguments for global warming caused by human activity.
“We are not saying there is not warming due to human activity,” Tsonis told CNSNews.com. ‘We are saying that there are natural shifts on top of that. But, for now, it looks like it is going to cool.”
Tsonis said that currently the natural cycles, which occur in part because of the way oceans interact, are stronger than the influence human activity has on the environment. But when the earth begins to warm again in several decades, he said, the globe could be in trouble because natural warming and man-made warming will occur simultaneously
“At this point it [natural variation] at least balances, or may be stronger, than the human influence,” said Tsonis. “But if temperatures shift again as we believe they will, then warming will be dramatic. It will be natural warming on top of human warming.””
On the other hand it is possible that aerosals are part of the story of the reduction in temperature increase in recent years.
Eric,
The contribution of cooling from the melting of ice could make at most a very tiny contribution to net ocean heat content. This has been affirmed by none other than James Hansen (I think it was included in the famous 2005 “warming in the pipeline” paper in Science). It has been independently confirmed by many people, and a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (melt enough ice to raise the ocean level by 2 mm, and figure out how much the heat of fusion would cool the top 700 meters of the ocean) shows that it is negligible.
The ocean heat data is very clear, the warming stopped in about 2003, and this alone appears inconsistent with climate model projections. That the warming stopped suddenly appears inconsistent with substantial future warming “in the pipeline”, because a sudden stop is inconsistent with very long ocean lag times. This in turn casts doubt on high climate sensitivity, since high sensitivity is only possible with long ocean heat lags.
Slow ocean heat accumulation is to climate models what a card on the first floor is to a house of cards: the structure of the whole thing depends it. Take it away and the house falls. Same goes for substantial (and very uncertain) aerosol cooling that “cancels” much or most of the expected radiative forcing from well mixed gases.
Roger Peilke Sr. (no amateur he) has both published and blogged about the lack of ocean heating and how it conflicts with model projections. He publicly invited Gavin at Real Climate to conduct a (civilized) exchange about this subject. Gavin never replied. I think this speaks volumes.
eric,
“Since I am not an expert on aerosals, I can’t make a definitive judgment about where in the range of the aerosal forcings, the real forcing effect lies.”
Please note that the wide error bars mean that even the experts in that field don’t know. That is the point… nobody knows! Kind of crazy to claim model projections are “settled science” when nobody really knows if aerosol effects cancel much of the radiative forcing.
In this case settled science is a strawman argument.
I certainly don’t claim all of the science is settled. Neither do climate scientists that I have read. It is quite the opposite.
The effects of aerosols and clouds obviously aren’t and scientists who write on those topics recognize it.
There are parts of the science that are pretty well settled. We know how the lapse rate works, we know how the radiation propagation works in clear air. I think that is a fair claim.
Eric,
It was not my intention to set up a strawman argument. My point was very sincere: politicians are in the process of setting up a cap and trade system of carbon emissions permits what will be at first moderately expensive and completely ineffective (probably the only thing James Hansen and I agree on!) but ultimately extremely expensive and draconian, all based mainly on the projections of climate models, which themselves rest in key areas on much less than certain science. The proposed cap and trade system has “for certain” substantial costs and much less than certain benefits. While I will not be around to suffer the worst of the cap and trade impacts, I am honestly concerned about the costs that will be paid for this program by the next three generations, and especially the costs for the world’s poorest.
I agree that most lapse rate issues and radiation propagation, as well as total radiative forcing effects from infrared absorbing gases (independent of feedbacks) are all pretty well understood. I think it is also fair to say we agree that the science of aerosols and clouds are not settled (as you say “It is quite the opposite”). I consider any agreement at all on substantive climate issues very positive.
Thank you for a civilized exchange.
I agree that disagreements between us lie in the area of tradeoffs between doing averting climate change, evaluation of mitigation of unfair burdens on inhabitants of regions adversely affected, and doing nothing, which must be evaluated based on imperfectly known probabilities of climate problems.
The people that do climate science are aware of this problem. It is their job to evaluate the probable consequences of different scenarios. I think they are trying to do this in a sincere and honest way. They have a huge responsibility.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/the-uncertainty-climate-modeling?order=asc
I do not have the background or experience substitute my judgment for theirs, and I have more understanding than the average persons who comment here.
On the other had, I think that the majority of posters here are willing to accept any theory that will provide an outcome which dispenses with the need to do anything.
@Eric,
All evdence is now pointng to CO2 only havng a minor role in clmate, at best. The climate is non-linear, and has always had periods of warmng and cooling – the growth of CO2 has done nothng to stop this pattern.
Case for AGW has been falsified and clmatologsts need to look elsewhere for the cause of warming since the LIA. I suspect the sun and water (in all it’s forms) could be the major driver of these regular swings.
Tenuc (13:08:01) :
“@Eric,
All evdence is now pointng to CO2 only havng a minor role in clmate, at best. The climate is non-linear, and has always had periods of warmng and cooling – the growth of CO2 has done nothng to stop this pattern.
Case for AGW has been falsified and clmatologsts need to look elsewhere for the cause of warming since the LIA. I suspect the sun and water (in all it’s forms) could be the major driver of these regular swings.”
You cannot be correct. If all the evidence is pointing as you say to CO2 having a minor role at best, the overwhelming majority of scientists, 97.4% of those who research climate wouldn’t say that CO2 is a significant factor. The fact that natural fluctuations of climate exist and are strong, doesn’t mean that AGW is not an important factor over time. Tsonis and Swanson, who have studied and simulated the natural variations of climate say this.
eric:
It appears that you are the one who cannot be correct. Where did that 97.4% number come from? Since you couldn’t find 97.4% of any group agreeing that today is Friday, it is obviously a bogus number [and of course what you were trying to say is the percentage that agree CO2 is ‘significant’]. What is today’s definition of “significant”? Keep in mind that the minuscule amount of warming due to human activity is so small that it is unmeasurable.
We know the approximate percentage of human emitted CO2 versus the percentage emitted naturally. It is nothing to be concerned about.
@Eric.
Sorry Eric, perhaps my reply was not clear enough – my English not always good.
AGW is only theory and as with any theory it fails when falsified. The falsification has now happened and the logic work like this:-
GST stable since 2002 – CO2 continued to rise over the same period.
Therefore either CO2 has no effect on clmate OR some other factor was powerful enough to stop the theorised warmng effect of CO2. Either way AGW theory is now falsfied and we should be trying to find out the real causes of climate change. However, politics and vested interest wll not let this happen until carbon tax becomes reality.
Even if 99.99% of scientists believe a theory to be true, only one fact needed to falsify. Many examples of this from the past – e.g. flat earth, plate tectonics. Real science DOES NOT WORK BY CONSENSUS.
HTH.
eric (04:50:10) :
““We are not saying there is not warming due to human activity,” Tsonis told CNSNews.com”
So, eric? Neither is Lindzen. Swanson clearly has a different view from Tsonis. I doubt Swanson thinks that “we can’t say what human activity is doing”-which is not saying there is no effect. The dispute is on the magnitude. As far as I can tell, Tsonis thinks the magnitude can’t be detected with certainty, Swanson thinks it is even bigger than suggested, and Lindzen thinks it’s insignificant. Tsonis, I think, is quite honorable compared to you, saying “I don’t know”. What’s wrong with that? It’s certainly more honest than glibly certain assertions made by some…
Tenuc,
“AGW is only theory and as with any theory it fails when falsified. The falsification has now happened and the logic work like this:-
GST stable since 2002 – CO2 continued to rise over the same period.
Therefore either CO2 has no effect on clmate OR some other factor was powerful enough to stop the theorised warmng effect of CO2. Either way AGW theory is now falsfied and we should be trying to find out the real causes of climate change. However, politics and vested interest wll not let this happen until carbon tax becomes reality.”
I think your logic is wrong. Short term natural variations are strong and can cover up a long term trend like the GHE. The word stop, implying that GHG radiational forcing, and positive feedback phenomena, are no longer operative, is not the only alternative, or even the logical alternative. Other factors that change the climate could also be more dominant – ocean currents, solar minimum, and aerosol increases. Tsonis and Swanson in their paper, focus on ocean index oscillations and predict that a temporary pause in global warming will occur. However we see that El Nino is starting up again, and the cooling period may be over.
The history of recent global temperatures and the noise in the data, shows that a long term linear trend of 0.2C/decade may temporarily be overwhelmed by climate noise for a decade and more.
eric (05:18:53)
So, we’ve now had around a decade of coolng, and by admitting that other factors have over-ridded the effects of CO2 you too must agree that it has only a weak effect, at best. Theory falsified.
You predict a continuation of the warmng soon. My prediction is that it will contnue for some tme.
I think climate history is on my side (below is vague approch to climate wisdom, but detailed meaningful trends are useless in a dynamic chaotic system):-
1410-1500 cold (Sporer minimum) – Low Solar Activity(LSA)
1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA)
1610-1700 cold (Maunder minimum) – (LSA)
1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
1810-1900 cold (Dalton minimum) – (LSA)
1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
The sun and water (in all it’s forms) are likely to be the major climate drivers.
@Eric
Sorry, second paragraph should read as:-
You predict a continuation of the warmng soon. My prediction is that it will continue cooling for another decade or two.
Smokey (14:42:38) :
“eric:
“You cannot be correct. If all the evidence is pointing as you say to CO2 having a minor role at best, the overwhelming majority of scientists, 97.4% of those who research climate wouldn’t say that CO2 is a significant factor.”
It appears that you are the one who cannot be correct. Where did that 97.4% number come from? Since you couldn’t find 97.4% of any group agreeing that today is Friday, it is obviously a bogus number [and of course what you were trying to say is the percentage that agree CO2 is ‘significant’]. What is today’s definition of “significant”? Keep in mind that the minuscule amount of warming due to human activity is so small that it is unmeasurable.
We know the approximate percentage of human emitted CO2 versus the percentage emitted naturally. It is nothing to be concerned about”
Here is the reference:
http://bucksdelux.com/random/climate_change.pdfe
“1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
Results show that overall, 90% of participants
answered “risen” to question 1
and 82% answered yes to question 2. In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2”
Tenuc (11:30:06) :
“So, we’ve now had around a decade of coolng, and by admitting that other factors have over-ridded the effects of CO2 you too must agree that it has only a weak effect, at best. Theory falsified.”
I don’t know how you define weak. If the long term trend is 3 degrees/ century, and it continues, that is not weak. Over the space of a decade, it can be overwhelmed by climate noise, which has a larger amplitude, if you look at the data.
eric,
Sorry, but your link is no good.
Neither is the question it purports to answer.
Why? Because they don’t define “significant.” That is a vague, arbitrary word that means very different things to different people. It’s a weasel word. Gorons love weasel words because they can mean whatever a warmist wants them to mean.
Does significant mean >10%? >50%? Or maybe, anything above the background noise level? Or maybe even, “measurable”?
No, it couldn’t mean ‘measurable,’ because AGW has never been measured. It is only found in the fevered imagination of those programming their always wrong GCMs.
And any poll that comes up with 97.4% of respondents agreeing on something is complete bogosity. No unbiased person would believe those results.
When someone comes up with a neutral, unbiased, secret ballot poll of legitimate rank-and-file people working in the field [not self-identified like that poll is], wake me.
In the mean time, as the planet’s temperature continues to cool, and CO2 continues to rise, bogus polls are all the AGW crowd has left. They’ve been flat wrong about everything: increasing hurricanes, the ozone hole, coral bleaching, drowning polar bears, predictions of future warming, CO2=AGW, sea ice extent, fast rising sea levels, and everything else they blame on AGW. They’ve been wrong on everything.
So believe that ridiculous poll if you like. The rest of us will be listening to what planet Earth is actually telling us: CO2=AGW is a crock.
eric (11:55:36) :
I don’t know how you define weak. If the long term trend is 3 degrees/ century, and it continues, that is not weak. Over the space of a decade, it can be overwhelmed by climate noise, which has a larger amplitude, if you look at the data.
The 3 degrees/century is a fiction of the very inadequet models being used. Scientists do not have sufficient knowledge about how our climate works to model it effectivley and even if they did we don’t have sufficent data granularty or accuracy of measure to produce ‘prediction’ results. Don’t believe the consenus on AGW, it is clearly wrong, investgate and form your own opinion.
Interestingly, the climate noise you mention is the natural stuff which drives long-term climate change and is responsible for kicking it into a high or low energy state (see bottom of my previous post).
Please read up on chaos theory and you’ll fnd some surprising things about chaotic systems, like our climate, which the IPCC fails to relate. Climate is in constant change at all scales and bifurcations often occur – linear temperature trends do not exist, rather climate flips from one state to another.
Tenuc,
The climate is a chaotic system, which causes it to have a noisy behavior. It also reacts to radiative forcing factors. You are creating a false dichotomy.
The fact that you believe that AGW is not going to change the climate significantly does not amount to falsification, as you claim.
Tenuc,
“I think climate history is on my side (below is vague approch to climate wisdom, but detailed meaningful trends are useless in a dynamic chaotic system):-
1410-1500 cold (Sporer minimum) – Low Solar Activity(LSA)
1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA)
1610-1700 cold (Maunder minimum) – (LSA)
1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
1810-1900 cold (Dalton minimum) – (LSA)
1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
The sun and water (in all it’s forms) are likely to be the major climate drivers.”
You are assuming the future and present are exactly like the past. You are saying that the sun, and ocean are the only drivers of climate. First of all the ocean does not drive the climate in the same sense as the sun and other radiative forcing. The ocean stores and recirculates the energy, , but does not directly affect the heat entering or escaping the earth-atmosphere system.
AGW is a new and unprecendented mechanism, so appealing to precedent is not a valid argument.
I think one or the reasons for the climate hysteria is that the public does not distinguish between research and what Thomas Kuhn called normal science. Research is a race to be the first to publish new results that can advance science. Only after a rigorous scientific debate do theses results become part of normal science. The public is led to believe that climate change has reached the normal science level. Several alarmist blogs will evaluate a researcher according to the number of peer reviewed papers he has published. As a researcher myself, I know that a paper is normally peer-reviewed by only three to four scientists which are chosen by the editor. By examing how the IPCC reports have evolved with time we can see that the science on climate change is not settled. For example, prior to 2001, a medieval warming was shown in the IPCC reports for the temperature history curves. Then in 2001 the medieval warming disapeared (Mann hockey stick graph) only to reappear in the IPCC 2007 report. The climate models significantly overpredict the global temperature. The public does not appreciate the uncertainty in the numerical models and the concept that the influence of CO2 on temperature is obtained indirectly through adjustable parameters (radiative forcings). I work in a goverment lab which distributes funds and performs research on the effects of CO2 on forests and wildlife. We also investigate methods of sequestring CO2. None of my colleagues who work on climate change show the hysteria which is observed in the media. They generally cite the IPCC reports as their premise for assuming that climate change is mostly anthropogenic. I think the public needs to understand that climate change is still a research topic as so well described by Richard Lindzen.
Raymond .
Well said!!!