Dr. Richard Lindzen writes to me with news of this significant new paper saying “It has taken almost 2 years to get this out. “. Part of that problem appears to be hostile reviewers in earlier submissions to JGR, something we’ve seen recently with other skeptical papers, such as O’Donnell’s rebuttal to Steig et al (Antarctica is warming) where Steig himself inappropriately served as a reviewer, and a hostile one at that.
Hostile reviewers aside, the paper will now be published in an upcoming issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and I am honored to be able to be able to present it here. The authors state that:
“We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010).”
…
The present paper responds to the criticism, and corrects the earlier approach where appropriate. The earlier results are not significantly altered, and we show why these results differ from what others like Trenberth et al. (2010), and Dessler (2010) obtain.
So, while that may satisfy some critics, given the hostility shown to the idea that there is a low sensitivity to forcings, I’m sure a whole new crop of critics will spring up for this paper. The response to this paper in AGW proponent circles, like the feedback posited for Earth’s climate system, will surely be negative. Let the games begin.
Some highlights:
However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).
…
This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2
…
As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.
…
Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift.
Willis Eschenbach will no doubt find some interesting things in this paper, as it speaks of some of the same regulation mechanisms in the tropics as Willis has opined on here at WUWT. Here’s the Abstract and Conclusion, a link to the full paper follows:
==============================================================
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
Abstract:
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to
this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are
exaggerating climate sensitivity.
Conclusion:
We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010). First of all, to improve the statistical significance of the results, we supplemented ERBE data with CERES data, filtered out data noise with 3-month smoothing, objectively chose the intervals based on the smoothed data, and provided confidence intervals for all sensitivity estimates. These constraints helped us to more accurately obtain climate feedback factors than with the original use of monthly data. Next, our new formulas for climate feedback
and sensitivity reflect sharing of tropical feedback with the globe, so that the tropical region is now properly identified as an open system. Last, the feedback factors inferred from the atmospheric models are more consistent with IPCC-defined climate sensitivity
than those from the coupled models. This is because, in the presence of cloud-induced radiative changes altering SST, the climate feedback estimates by the present approach tends to be inaccurate. With all corrections, the conclusion still appears to be
that all current models seem to exaggerate climate sensitivity (some greatly). Moreover, we have shown why studies using simple regressions of ΔFlux on ΔSST serve poorly to determine feedbacks.
To respond to the criticism of our emphasis on the tropical domain (Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010), we analyzed the complete record of CERES for the globe (Dessler, 2010) (Note that ERBE data is not available for the high latitudes since the field-of-view is between 60oS and 60oN). As seen in the previous section, the use of the global CERES record leads to a result that is basically similar to that from the tropical data in this
study. The global CERES record, however, contains more noise than the tropical record.
This result lends support to the argument that the water vapor feedback is primarily restricted to the tropics, and there are reasons to suppose that this is also the case for cloud feedbacks. Although, in principle, climate feedbacks may arise from any
latitude, there are substantive reasons for supposing that they are, indeed, concentrated mostly in the tropics. The most prominent model feedback is that due to water vapor, where it is commonly noted that models behave roughly as though relative humidity
were fixed. Pierrehumbert (2009) examined outgoing radiation as a function of surface temperature theoretically for atmospheres with constant relative humidity. His results are shown in Fig. 13.
Specific humidity is low in the extratropics, while it is high in the tropics. We see that for extratropical conditions, outgoing radiation closely approximates the Planck black body radiation (leading to small feedback). However, for tropical conditions, increases in outgoing radiation are suppressed, implying substantial positive feedback. There are also reasons to suppose that cloud feedbacks are largely confined to the tropics. In the
extratropics, clouds are mostly stratiform clouds that are associated with ascending air while descending regions are cloudfree. Ascent and descent are largely determined by the large scale wave motions that dominate the meteorology of the extratropics, and for these waves, we expect approximately 50% cloud cover regardless of temperature (though details may depend on temperature). On the other hand, in the tropics, upper level clouds, at least, are mostly determined by detrainment from cumulonimbus towers, and cloud coverage is observed to depend significantly on temperature (Rondanelli and Lindzen, 2008).
As noted by LCH01, with feedbacks restricted to the tropics, their contribution to global sensitivity results from sharing the feedback fluxes with the extratropics. This led to inclusion of the sharing factor c in Eq. (6). The choice of a larger factor c leads to
a smaller contribution of tropical feedback to global sensitivity, but the effect on the climate sensitivity estimated from the observation is minor. For example, with c = 3, climate sensitivity from the observation and the models is 0.8 K and a higher value
(between 1.3 K and 6.4 K), respectively. With c = 1.5, global equilibrium sensitivity from the observation and the models is 0.6 K and any value higher than 1.6 K, respectively. Note that, as in LCH01, we are not discounting the possibility of feedbacks in the extratropics, but rather we are focusing on the tropical contribution to global feedbacks. Note that, when the dynamical heat transports toward the extratropics are taken into account, the overestimation of tropical feedback by GCMs may lead to even greater overestimation of climate sensitivity (Bates, 2011).
This emphasizes the importance of the tropical domain itself. Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift. Concerning the different sampling from the ERBE and CERES instruments, Murphy et al. (2009) repeated the Forster and Gregory (2006) analysis for the CERES and found very different values than those from the ERBE. However, in this
study, the addition of CERES data to the ERBE data does little to change the results for ΔFlux/ΔSST – except that its value is raised a little (as is also true when only CERES data is used.). This may be because these previous simple regression approaches include
the distortion of feedback processes by equilibration. In distinguishing a precise feedback from the data, the simple regression method is dependent on the data period, while our method is not. The simple regression result in Fig. 7 is worse if the model
integration time is longer (probably due to the greater impact of increasing radiative forcing).
Our study also suggests that, in current coupled atmosphereocean models, the atmosphere and ocean are too weakly coupled since thermal coupling is inversely proportional to sensitivity (Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998). It has been noted by Newman et al. (2009) that coupling is crucial to the simulation of phenomena like El Niño. Thus, corrections of the sensitivity of current climate models might well improve the behavior of coupled
models, and should be encouraged. It should be noted that there have been independent tests that also suggest sensitivities less than predicted by current models. These tests are based on the response to sequences of volcanic eruptions (Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998), on the vertical structure of observed versus modeled temperature increase (Douglass, 2007; Lindzen, 2007), on ocean heating (Schwartz, 2007; Schwartz, 2008), and on
satellite observations (Spencer and Braswell, 2010). Most claims of greater sensitivity are based on the models that we have just shown can be highly misleading on this matter. There have also been attempts to infer sensitivity from paleoclimate data (Hansen
et al., 1993), but these are not really tests since the forcing is essentially unknown given major uncertainties in clouds, dust loading and other factors. Finally, we have shown that the attempts to obtain feedbacks from simple regressions of satellite measured outgoing radiation on SST are inappropriate.
One final point needs to be made. Low sensitivity of global mean temperature anomaly to global scale forcing does not imply that major climate change cannot occur. The earth has, of course, experienced major cool periods such as those associated with ice ages and warm periods such as the Eocene (Crowley and North, 1991). As noted, however, in Lindzen (1993), these episodes were primarily associated with changes in the equatorto-
pole temperature difference and spatially heterogeneous forcing. Changes in global mean temperature were simply the residue of such changes and not the cause.
==============================================================
Dr. Lindzen has the full paper on his personal website here:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Computer models, like other computer software, do what they are programmed to do. It’s not wonder that the models show increased CO2 causes warming because that’s how they are programmed.
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:46 am
“So modeling is OK when it supports a skeptic position, but not OK when it doesn’t?”
If you are going to criticize the efforts of modelers, you have to talk about models. A main conclusion of the paper is that “the models” show sensitivity that is set too high.
Surely, you do not believe that the authors are offering a model as the true model and calling for rejection of the other models.
@Baxter 75: I think they want to repent their “sins” it’s some kind of religious thing.
Richard Saumarez says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:14 am
“Scientific consensus leads to a theory. However theories are models of how the world works.”
False and False. I regret that I do not have time to explain these matters once again. In brief, a model is an analytic tool that can be used to do analytic work. A physical theory is a synthetic tool that organizes what we know about a particular part of physical existence and can predict and explain novel phenomena (hence the word ‘synthetic’). A model cannot substitute for a physical theory, unless you have chosen to limit your physical theory to the past.
Friends:
So, Lindzen & Choi have re-assessed their work and – having taken account of all criticisms – they conclude:
“As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations”
Their revised estimate of 0.7 K for a doubling of CO2 is similar to their original finding which was that climate sensiivity for a doubling of CO2 is 0.5 K.
Even more interesting is that whenever people obtain an “observational result” for climate sensitivity they find it is less than 1K for a doubling of CO2. As illustration, I again point to the 8 different “natural experiments” of Idso. The abstract of his paper published in 1998 can be read at
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
together with a link to the original paper. He concluded:
“Best estimate 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
OK, Idso’s value of about 0.37 K is about half the Lindzen & Choi estimate of 0.7 K for a doubling of CO2, but both are much less than the typically more than 1K use in climate models. Indeed, all “observational results” for climate sensitivity are less than 1 K for a doubling of CO2. And, importantly, anything less than 1 K for a doubling of CO2 would mean the effect on climate of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration would be so trivial that it could not be detected..
Perhaps we are starting to home-in on a true value for climate sensitivity which will result in a genuine “scientific consensus” instead of the faux ‘consensus’ that has been used to obscure results of genuine scientific enquiry.
Richard
Coincidentally I have just started to read ‘The Road to Reality’ by Roger Penrose. Here’s a quote from page 13 – he’s talking about mathematics:
“Do we mean ‘agreed by all’, for example, or ‘agreed by those who are in their right minds’, or ‘agreed by all those who have a Ph. D. in mathematics’ (not much use in Plato’s day) and who have a right to venture an ‘authoritative’ opinion? There seems to be a danger of circularity here; for to judge whether or not someone is ‘in his or her right mind’ requires some external standard. So also does the meaning of ‘authoritative’, unless some standard of an unscientific nature such as ‘majority opinion’ were to be adopted (and it should be made clear that majority opinion, no matter how important it may be for democratic government, should in no way be used as the criterion for scientific acceptability).”
Pascvaks says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:32 am
“Boomers also confuse “their” with “they’re” and don’t generally spell well a’tal. But we were all taught to write cursive.”
Yeah, and the failure to write cursive brings with it a deficiency in humanity and another in efficiency. The school administrators responsible for this cultural tragedy have a special place prepared for them you know where. Spelling is somewhat like accent.
My top 10:
1) ROTFLMAO
2) Buy some Carbon Credit Certificates for my kid’s kid’s kids to have for show and tell.
3) Realize he’s serious and feel sorry for him; his 15 minutes of fame is turning into infamy, that’s gotta be tuff stuff.
4) Wonder how he can mentally justify trumping observation with what basically amounts to guesswork at best and intentional fraud at worst.
5) Wonder how long it will be before a global paleo-climatological record that is scientifically sound is published. (i.e. one that doesn’t endeavor to mislead by minimizing MWP, LIA, etc.)
6) Wonder what the next impending global environmental disaster that requires the immediate termination of fossil fuel use will be.
7) Wonder how long it will take to get climate models that are realistic.
8) Send “M&M”, Lindzen, Watts, etc. etc. thank you notes.
9) Get out the popcorn in anticipation of all the cussing CAGW advocates will be doing over the next few years while they attempt to salvage their cause.
10) Look forward to being able to watch shows on the Discovery Channel again.
Matt:
At August 17, 2011 at 7:33 am you say;
“But, I want to add an important qualification: What Lindzen is (legitimately) calling an “observational result”, is not a direct observation in a literal sense. Like any other measurement of climate sensitivity, it has to be *inferred* from direct observation, using some sort of theoretical model.”
Oh dear! That is really lame and is a misrepresentation of measurement theory. Indeed, you admit that Lindzen “legitimately” says the finding of Lindzen & Choi is an observational result.
But, according to your statement there is nothing that can be called “a direct observation in a literal sense”. For example, a temperature indicated by a calibrated mercury and glass thermometer “is not a direct observation in a literal sense” because “it has to be *inferred* from direct observation, using some sort of theoretical model.”
Lindzen & Choi did a measurement and obtained a result. State any error you can find in their measurement method and/or their measurent equipment. But do not try to denigrate their work with sophistry that you pretend is “an important qualification”.
Richard
Lets clear something up concerning consensus.
Consensus is totally irrelevant to science and to what is true and what is false. This should be easily agreed by all.
However, when any action or policy is proposed, a consensus must be reached on action, as it affects many people, in diverse lands. These are judgment calls and all peoples must judge the merit of such calls.
For instance, if actions of climate control were executed, in order to maintain an “acceptable” climate in Florida, it may involve reducing Canada’s average temperatures by 5 or 10 degrees. Should Canadians not have a say in such action and perhaps the power of veto? What about northern Europe and the Scandinavian countries? Shouldn’t we all have a say in things that will definitely affect food supplies?? Shouldn’t we all have a say, in the definition of “acceptable”.
Those who cannot discern the proper role for consensus, are continuously muddying up the real and actual empirical water. This is a great disservice to Man. GK
This paper asserts that the models’ coupling of the atmosphere and ocean is too weak. I find this plausible. The following analysis suggests that the impact of the trade winds and westerlies on the mixing of heat into the ocean is not adequately accounted for:
http://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/ocean_variance
To correct Bruce of Newcastle…
Bruce inserted an extra “than” into the quote from the paper.
The quote should be “likely greater than the possibilities”
(as opposed to “likely greater than than the possibilities”)
This paper will not matter a bit to the true believers. The pillars of their temple are crashing around them, but they still remain unshaken in their beliefs. When they do accept the inevitable reality, there will be a massive upwelling of anger from their camp as they come to grips with the fraud and deceit with which they were led astray.
Woe be to the deceivers.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences = Another respectable journal not controlled or contaminated by overly opinionated scientists hell bent on getting their way… Even if their conclusions may be in error and exaggerated.
(Note – I did not use ad-homs, call them liars, or frauds, or corrupt… they simply have too much control of the peer review process and tilt the journal output to echo their own scientific conclusions)
I’m surprised at the range of errors: 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels) Does this mean that Dr. Lindzen considers it possible that CO2 may have a cooling effect? I do, since the main observable since the beginning of the CO2 age has been cooling of the Stratosphere and there is nothing except computer models to prevent this cooling from propagating down the the surface and offsetting any surface warming from backscattered radiation. I believe there has been warming, though, but mainly from UHI, land use, and direct heating from SUVs, limited and harmless.
Anthony,
I may not have been clear in my previous comment.
The quote in your post currently reads:
“likely greater than than the possibilities”
when it should read (as Lindzen’s paper does):
“likely greater than the possibilities”
Trivial, I know, but also true.
“”””” The most prominent model feedback is that due to water vapor, where it is commonly noted that models behave roughly as though relative humidity
were fixed. Pierrehumbert (2009) examined outgoing radiation as a function of surface temperature theoretically for atmospheres with constant relative humidity. His results are shown in Fig. 13. “””””
Well I suppose that if Peter Humbug can keep relative humidity absolutely constant as a function of surface Temperature; and this in a “model” that is supposed to be all about “feedbacks”, then I suppose he can also make up his own laws of Physics, with which to analyse the fictitious behavior of earth’s climate system.
Why not try using the same set of laws of Physics, that Mother Gaia uses, when she decides what earth’s climate shall be.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to show that the relative humidity in earth’s atmosphere over ice at zero deg C, is not the same, as it is over boiling water at 100 deg C.
Ergo, the relative humidity for earth’s atmosphere, CANNOT be constant, independent of surface Temperature.
So what other Physics fictions does Peter assume ?
Gary Swift – politicians love long time scales, so that might be a face saving way out for our governments. I say we take 500 years of good observations and revisit AGW then. Lets argue about the quality and distribution of the measurements, not models and historical “reconstructions”.
DCA says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:23 am
Gavin Schmidt has been saying lately that the paleo data are more important than the recent observations. Now we know why.
How would one respond to his assertion?
#######
first you have to understand that Lindzen is actually estimating the TCR or transient climate response. That’s probably the bit that everyone here missed. The fast reponse can be thought of as the climate’s quick reaction to a doubling. You increase C02 and you see what the response is.. in the short term. That’s about all you can get from observational studies. Input: response.
we can to a first order calculate this from first principles and get something close to Lindzen’s answer ( has nothing to do with C02.. just what is the response to an additional watt of input)
The ECR or equillibrium climate response is what happens over longer periods of time and includes those processes that take longer to develop, like changes in albedo. The ECR takes hundreds of years. When people talk about sensitivity they are talking about the ECR.
The observation record is too short to a good estimate of the ECR. You get a nice lower bound however.
To estimate the ECR you have two choices: paleo and modelling. So hansen looks at the million year response and estimates the sensitivity as 3C.
Imagine you slam your pedal to the floor. Then you take a short snap shot of your acceleration
at the begining of your run or anywhere in the run. How well can you estimate the Total system response to that forcing. That is, how well can you estimate your final velocity? err not too well
People are mislead by the simple word observation. The thing being observed here is not the
ECR. He’s comparing the TCR from observations to the ECRs of climate models.
two entirely different beasts.
for some background on TCR read this
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/28/6-transient-response-to-the-well-mixed-greenhouse-gases/
“”””” Theo Goodwin says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:53 am
Richard Saumarez says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:14 am
“Scientific consensus leads to a theory. However theories are models of how the world works.”
False and False. I regret that I do not have time to explain these matters once again. In brief, a model is an analytic tool that can be used to do analytic work. A physical theory is a synthetic tool that organizes what we know about a particular part of physical existence and can predict and explain novel phenomena (hence the word ‘synthetic’). A model cannot substitute for a physical theory, unless you have chosen to limit your physical theory to the past. “””””
Well Theo, I don’t know how YOU rationalize ANY difference between a THEORY, and a MODEL.
To me, a THEORY is simply a description of the properties that the MODEL is endowed with; by those who created the model in the first place. Both are equally fictitious; as are all the mathematical tools that have been created to manipulate the model, in that nothing in any of that actually exists in the real universe.
We can “observe” by any of a whole array of means, what we believe the real universe is doing; and has done in the past; and we can artificially create our models and their descriptive theories, so that they can be shown to behave in some way as close to what we perceive the real universe behaves; but those theories and models are not substitutes for the observations of the real universe.
Of course, we ca use our theories to predict (sometimes quite precisely) how the model will behave in the future; or what the outcome would be, if we performed an experiment with our model, that has never been performed. We like it when some analagous experiment that we perform in the real world, results in observations of an apparent behavior of the real universe, that appears to us to be similar to that predicted of the model.
When that doesn’t turn out to be the case, then we try to devise a new model (and theory) that is a better match to what we observe in the real world.
The real world itself is far too complex for us to predict the future behavior; or result of some as yet never performed experiment.
It would be very helpful if some diligent person could provide a listing of all the relevant sceptical peer reviewed papers that have been published and not refuted that demonstrate that the IPCC’s estimate of CO2 sensitivity is too high.
The reason that I am asking is that I want to send an e:mail to every Australian MP and Senator that will inform them that the emerging science is demonstrating that the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is more like 1 deg C rather than the IPCC’s claimed 3.5 deg C.
Providing a detailed list of relevant references will enable the MPs and Senators to direct informed question to the Government’s scientific advisers – the Chief Scientist, Will Steffen, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, CSIRO, and the BOM.
The response of politicians in Australia to questions posed to them about the science has been to say that they have no option but to rely on the advice of their scientific advisers. The politicians argue that they are not scientists.
One of the great travesties of life is that man is a rationally irrational being. Often times being correct through a gut ‘intuitive’ feeling in response to empirical data. It is interesting to see that this thread has become more a comment on the approach of skepticism rather than one on this paper. Which is philosophical in nature and this makes it fun. So I will add in my opinion as it is all I have to offer 😉
It is only through the thorough vetting of ideology in which we can figure out truth. Often times this means adopting a point of view that falls in line with previous held beliefs and satisfies our own understanding of how the world works. In terms of computer programming this is a large list of if/then statements that represents the ethos of being. Each idea encountered must be run against the if/else/then statements in order to be analyzed. If at some point a statement is met that does not meet the requirement for understanding it is either rejected immediately ( most likely response ) or sent to a sub routine for analysis and parsing.
Thankfully the human condition allows for the rewriting of code, this is done through a subroutine in which an analysis of the if/then/else statements are analysed, some people have highly trained subroutines to do this, others are so rarely used that the few times something gets to this subroutine can have catastrophic effects to the ethos of the individual.
In the CAGW vs the NCGW crowd ( Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming vs Natural Cyclical Global Warming ) each side has a set of understanding and ‘line of code’ if I can borrow my fathers dubbing of this systematic approach of understanding human belief that causes them to be skeptical of one another’s work. My own line of code is such that I simply have an issue with correlation and causation having been burned far too many times by the two in business and scientific decisions to accept it as fact. By the same token I have a healthy understanding that CO2 is a gas that ‘traps’ heat in greater abundance than an atmosphere without said additional CO2. This causes skeptisim of both sides though I must admit the conclusions reached by CAGW seem far too, perhaps the word is ‘alarmist’ for me to take it as serious science. Providing only negatives and no upsides to the addition of a substance that may well be of use to mankind.
This is another one of my beliefs, if the only news is bad news than someone is holding something back in order to accomplish a desired outcome. Now please note these are beliefs brought upon by observation and thoughtful reflection which may turn out to be little more than bunk. Goodness knows I am wrong frequently about any number of subjects. I love what Keynes said on the subject in regards to his own work ( goodness how I wish he was alive today I wonder what he would make of what we did to his theories, odds are he would be first to chuck them ) “When the facts change I change my mind”
Since the ONLY reaction from the AGW crowd has been doom and gloom it adds a great deal to my skepticism about their science. If they reported good and bad consequences to the result set I would be more willing to take what they say as science, as it is all I hear is the devastation that will be wrought.
This paper seems to simply be a critique of someone else’s science with additional modification based on others critique of their critique. This being the case it simply places a postulation about the possible consequence of relying on a feedback effect that may be exaggerated.
Anyway thanks for letting me join in the fray of simply voicing thought and opinion. I personally prefer economics to climate science as it has a greater area for belief involved. Oh sure there are formula and explanations of formula but in the end all economics are is the explanation as to why people choose what they do via limited resources and unlimited desires. Which is a fun exercise in futility as desire is as fleeting as the science that studies it.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
Congratulations to the authors on getting their paper published. What happens next?
The paper will be scrutinised by the climate scientists, statisticians, mathematicians and other experts, and will be criticised or praised where appropriate. If others find merit in the paper, the work will be reproduced, and built on. It may even become the basis of a new paradigm of low sensitivity. If that happens, new explanations will be sought for all the observations that were previously thought to have been explained by the previous paradigm of high sensitivity.
=================================================================
John, I like the thought…… I just wished it reflected reality. It will be scrutinized and criticized regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. There are countless examples of studies being dismissed on entirely fallacious reasoning……. visit the McShane/Wyner rejoinder for examples.
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
Ursus Augustus says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I think there is a scientific consensus emerging as evidenced by this paper and a number of others over the past few years. That consensus is that CO2 is nowhere near the bogey it has been made out to be, that AGW is actually quite modest.
—————
So, a “consensus” is OK as long as it is critical of the mainstream consensus?
Yes, in the sense that an appeal to “consensus” or “mainstream consensus” is another one of the main unscientific arguments Climate Science makes in support of its [non] hypotheses. In other words, given that Climate Science has tried to redefine the rules of the game away from the practice of real science, it is allowable to defeat Climate Science on its own terms, at its own game.
But as “Geoff Shorten references: August 17, 2011 at 7:59 am” above, the term “consensus” must first be defined, something which Climate Science never does – unless you count the self-serving, untethered and nearly incoherent postulate that “Only Climate Scientists can speak about Climate Science” as ‘sensical’, for example, such that no one who is not a “Climate Scientist” can even mention or repeat the postulate!
Instead, Climate Science and its multiple followers and “stakeholders” only keep repeating something like, “There is a consensus about CO2 = CAGW [and we’re all gonna die if we don’t do something really stupid before it’s too late!] ” – which is close to the standard set by, “The Monkeys know it’s true because they always say it’s true.” – Mogli, The Jungle Book movie.
However, the very vacuum Climate Science specifically engineered concerning the meaning of “consensus” left other people free to define “consensus”! So I’ve claimed, for example, that it must involve the numbers of “scientists”, somehow reasonably defined, signing specific statements about the CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses”, taken at face value.
At which point Climate Science loses their own “consensus” game by at least about 10,000 to 75!
Theo Goodwin says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:29 am
John B says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:23 am
“On the other hand, it may be found to be full of holes, in which case it will be forgotten about in science circles but will become an extra piece of evidence of the “global warming conspiracy” here in the blogosphere.”
You really should not direct your ad hominems at me. (You do know what an ad hominem is, right?) You just implied that everyone who is proud to comment on WUWT uses articles whose flaws have been established beyond a doubt to further our paranoid view that there is a malevolent “global warming conspiracy.” At best, you owe a major apology to everyone associated with WUWT. You should be banned from this site.
“Remember to be skeptical, even of the work of skeptics.”
OK, son, here is your opportunity: explain what scepticism is. Expect to be graded. Of course, you cannot do this because you are totally incapable of giving an articulate account of scientific method, just like every other critic of this site.
Had you been a blessed and fortunate child, you would by now have found yourself awake to the enormous engine of genuine scepticism that WUWT is. If you want to learn about scepticism in the internet age, WUWT is the number one place to be. Maybe the only place to be. You darn well will not learn about scepticism or scientific method or even that they exist at Real Climate or its “fellow travelers.” They dare not speak of scientific method for the obvious reason that not one thing they have produced satisfies the standards of scientific method.
—————————–
Yes, I know what an ad hominem is, and I avoid them. And don’t call me son, I’m 53 years old. I know all about skepticism, having been actively skepticising (yes, I know that is not a word) acupuncture, homeopathy, creationism, and all manner of claptrap. My point here is this, there are people who will welcome and go on to cite this paper simply because they like its conclusion, irrespective of its validity. That is not skepticism. To such people, any criticism of the paper will be seen as merely proof that “The Team” are up to no good. I trust you are not one of those people, but you cannot deny they exist.