Recent Comments

Prev  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  1186  1187  1188  1189  1190  Next

Comments 59101 to 59150:

59101. scaddenp at 10:06 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Then you appear to have misunderstood it. The equations are integrated over the height of atmosphere. How else could temperature be used? Again, do you understand why GHG effect depends on a temperature?
59102. skywatcher at 10:05 AM on 9 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       les - I dont know how that works either, but the original sentence whizzed round the skeptic blogosphere repeated verbatim, always associated with Solani's 2011 paper. The original source, unusually, was always a link to a Google Translate version of a summary of an EIKE meeting in Germany in April 2011. The originator of the quote: Fritz Varenholt, in a verbal debate with Georg Feulner! How Chinese whispers spread on the Internet... So a verbal statement by Varenholt (see a recent article involving him here), got translated to English, then copied on a lot of english-speaking skeptic websites, presented as an 'official' summary of the Solanki paper.
59103. Tarcisio José D at 09:31 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       scaddenp @51 http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/berk.1987.modtran_desc.pdf
59104. scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Jose - where do you get the idea that MODTRANS does? Look again the RTEs.
59105. Tarcisio José D at 08:39 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Ricardo @ 46 An emission, spontaneously or not, must be analyzed by the principle of isotropic radiation when the distance between the points of transmission and reception (measured) is greater than 10 times the largest dimension of the radiator. Our radiator has 20,000 km long (equatorial) therefore can not be analyzed in a distance of 10 Km as an isotropic point.
59106. les at 08:10 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       It's not so much sentences like that; but that they're a secret society - you knew that they're secret, right? - along with other secret societies like the Bilderberg group, the UN, EU, pan-dimensional shape-shifting lizards, Michelle Mann and my aunt Matilda; who are engineering the reduction of the world population by cutting off the oil supply, motivated by the AGW-hoax. Or something like that.
59107. scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Jose, I am still curious as to why you chose to trust a couple of dubious videos instead of textbook atmospheric physics. Both speak to something that is new to you, so why did you trust one rather than the other?
59108. scaddenp at 07:08 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Jose, when a program is able to correctly predict observed spectra to very high precision for earth and other planets, I would be very hesitant to declare it is wrong, you would have to ask yourself whether the program (and thus the underlying model) is wrong - or your understanding of it. I'd say study Ramanathan more closely. You do understand why GHG effect depends on lapse rate? Ie no GHG effect in an isothermal slab.
59109. Riccardo at 07:03 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       Ies very true, sentences like "We need a system of governance that takes a more long-term view" will set conspiracy theorists on fire.
59110. Bob Lacatena at 07:01 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       45, Tarcisio José D, I think you should probably study the programs a lot more carefully before declaring them to be flawed. I promise you, if you think they are flawed, then there are things that you do not understand about them or the process.
59111. Riccardo at 06:58 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Tarciso "it appears that they are designed on the principle of transparency of the atmosphere to infrared radiation error" Absolutely wrong, they even quote the source of the absorption data. "the principle of irradiation of an isotropic radiator does not apply to this case." Wrong again, spontaneous emission is isotropic.
59112. Tarcisio José D at 05:32 AM on 9 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       Hello friends. I went to thank @ 40 Scaddenp the link to "Ramanathan" I am studying It, with the application MODTRAN suggested by Tom and also to thank Tom Curtis the kindness of intervening in the discussion to progress of science. I must also say that the study of these two programs it appears that they are designed on the principle of transparency of the atmosphere to infrared radiation error this (Tyndall, 1861) obscured by the principle of irradiation of an isotropic radiator does not apply to this case. For these errors in the program it can not explain the behavior "diode like" presented bay the atmosphere and neither simulate the sensitivity to carbon dioxide. I'll find a Godfather to guide me in preparing the statements and try to overcome the barrier of the peer-reviewed. "
59113. les at 04:33 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       6 - John That is so going to press all buttons the Conspiracy Theorists!!
59114. John Hartz at 04:10 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       By coincidence, the Club of Rome just released a new report on mankind’s ability to deal with climate change. (Rotterdam, the Netherlands): 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, by Jorgen Randers, launched by the Club of Rome on May 7, raises the possibility that humankind might not survive on the planet if it continues on its path of over-consumption and short-termism. This new report is summarized in the article, “New Report issues a warning about humanity’s ability to survive without a major change in direction” posted on the Club of Rome’s website. The article also contains a video about the launch. To access the article and video, click here .
59115. dana1981 at 03:51 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       BWTrainer @3 - I do think that accounting for all of the economic consequences of future climate change is a major challenge. It's hard enough to predict those changes, let alone their potential costs. Considering how risk averse people normally are, our cavalier attitute towards climate change is really uncharacteristic and bizarre. I think some of it is due to the fact that it's a long-term problem, as Rob noted. Some of it is just disbelief that the risk could be as high as it is. A lot of it is probably the effectiveness of the disinformation campaign as well. There's also the fact that most people do support reducing GHG emissions, but politicians are beholden to corporate interests, which are focused on their short-term profits. People don't see the problem as a high enough priority to force their representatives to act on it for the reasons noted above. There are a lot of factors behind our faiulre to mitigate this risk.
59116. Albatross at 03:42 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       Right now the odds of future generations emerging from this global experiment are becoming lower with each year of inaction. Rob, makes some good points. The problem with governments is that they typically work on a four year election cycle. This is a problem that requires vision, prudence and being altruistic. Sadly, much of what I see at work is myopia and greed. For future generations to stand a good chance of not having to pay an even heftier penalty for our actions, we need two things to hold true: 1) We need to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible. 2) Climate sensitivity needs to be on the very low end of the IPCC range. Arguing that climate sensitivity is "low" as an excuse to delay taking action, or not take action at all, is foolhardy, as we may very well already be locked into dangerous warming. Moreover, if little or no further action is taken because of this false sense of security, we could be headed for over 1000 ppmv CO2 by 2100, and in that situation even if climate sensitivity is "only" 2 C, we would still be potentially looking at warming on the order of 4-5 C, perhaps more. And that does not include the potentially disasterous impacts of ocean acidification associated with CO2 levels > 1000 ppmv. So, from my perspective, the pros of taking meaningful and prompt action on reducing GHGs far outweigh the cons, regardless of the value of climate sensitivity.
59117. BWTrainer at 03:40 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       To make matters worse, I wonder if the future cost estimate is drastically understated. As shown in the bullet points, several negative consequences of 3-4 ° warming are amplifiers that are only going to make matters worse. As Joe Romm and others have pointed out, 4 may be just a stopping point to even more warming. Am I correct in thinking that economic models don't account for that?
59118. dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       Good point Rob. People naturally have a harder time with risk management the further into the future the threat is posed.
59119. Rob Honeycutt at 03:08 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
       The other challenging part of this issue is that we are doing something that is somewhat unusual in terms of risk management. We are looking to insure future generations. It's one thing to pay for car insurance just in case you have a wreck. It's another thing entirely to say we should be paying auto insurance on our grand children's cars and homes. This is precisely why this has to be a governmental issue. Individuals have individual responsibilities that span their lifetimes, and to a lesser extent, their children's lives. Corporations are worse. They have to deal with quarter to quarter issues bordering with the span of time key executives are in charge. Governments operate in generational timeframes. They establish laws and structures that are intended to apply for the long term and ensure the security and prosperity for their people. The challenge is balancing the needs and responsibilities of corporations and individuals with the needs of nations over the course of generations. It's what makes this issue so incredibly challenging.
59120. MarkHoofnagle at 02:47 AM on 9 May 2012
       The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
       Thanks for the attribution on the tactics, however, it should be noted though that Diethelm and McKee used our definition of denialism as well.
59121. MP3CE at 02:11 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       #23 @dana1981 and #24 chriskoz: Thank you both for clarifying me my mistake.
59122. muoncounter at 02:07 AM on 9 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       Here's one from 2004, although there's no direct quote. That points to one reason the world should pay attention to this week's report. Like a canary in a coal mine, the hyper-sensitive polar regions may well experience the full force of global warming before the rest of the planet does.
59123. dana1981 at 02:00 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       alexharv074 @26 - apparently we agree on the substance of the post above, which is that Lindzen is wrong. It's true that by neglecting the global energy imbalance, Lindzen's "model" would effectively have zero 'unrealized warming'. However, since we know there is a global energy imbalance, we know his "model" is wrong (which is simply another way to describe the third Achilles' Heel from the post above). As for recent sensitivity estimates, that's a different subject. Some recent studies put it towards the lower end of the IPCC range, some in the middle, some towards the higher end. I'm not aware of any that put the value outside the IPCC range, except the flawed Lindzen and Choi papers. As for ad hominem, a couple of comments including CBD @30 have explained why you are incorrect on this point. Saying someone is wrong, or consistently wrong, is not ad hominem.
59124. John Hartz at 01:40 AM on 9 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       I posed this question because over the past few years I have seen a number of climatic events declared to be the "canary in the coal mine" by scientists and journalists. Does anyone happen to know who was the first prominent scientist to describe a climatic event as "the canary in the coal mine"?
59125. Albatross at 01:24 AM on 9 May 2012
       New research from last week 18/2012
       Hi Ari, Great papers this week-- I can't keep up! ;) Not looking good for the biosphere that sustains us is it?
59126. Albatross at 01:10 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex@26, I'm sorry but your entire post is essentially off topic and not relevant to the main post. Dana noted @4 that "...you're not addressing the point of the post", and you are still continuing to do so by presenting what could be construed by some as a Gish gallop of irrelevant and/or off-topic statements. Doing so is not helping your nor Lindzen's case. All that needs to be said/acknowledged is that Lindzen was wrong when he claimed "Yeah, and we should have seen 3[°C]".
59127. Utahn at 00:43 AM on 9 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Kevin C, I think it's Crook not Cook. Also Andrews 2012 I think estimates best guess around 3.4K equilibrium sensitivity. FWIW Gillett was an estimate of transient sensitivity, not sure there's an easy "conversion" factor for equilibrium sensitivity... Overall I agree that none of this impacts the basic point that Lindzen was wrong to suggest we should have already seen 3C. Alexharv074 said: "Thus, if Lindzen was right, the system would already be virtually in equilibrium - the timescale for a sensitivity of 0.7 K is just a few years." But Lindzen was referring to what we should have seen if he was wrong, i.e. if sensitivity was 3K...so, he's still wrong!
59128. Daniel Bailey at 00:03 AM on 9 May 2012
       New research from last week 17/2012
       I am...skeptical...
59129. les at 23:06 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       hummm... all a bit confusing. Much other stuff from Cole seems to have the same, or similar, origins. e.g. 30 Cole. Shouldn't there be a moderation policy that posts with substantial cut-and-paste from other sites, without links / attribution, should be deleted?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Revisions to the Comments Policy that cover this aspect are under consideration.
59130. muoncounter at 23:05 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       This paper appears to have slipped by without note. Kazil et al 2011: The decadal solar cycle modulation of Earth's radiative forcing via ionization of the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays, aerosol formation from the gas phase, and the response of clouds to aerosol is quantified for the first time with a climate model that represents and couples the relevant processes. ... Globally and annually averaged, the solar cycle modulation of Earth's radiative forcing, arising from the increase in atmospheric ionization by galactic cosmic rays from solar maximum to minimum, via charged nucleation of aerosol, the direct aerosol effect, and the cloud albedo effect, amounts to -0.05 W m-2. A limited relevance of this variation for the Earth's atmosphere and climate can be inferred, given that Earth's radiative forcing changes by -0.24 W m-2 from solar maximum to minimum because of a decrease in total solar irradiance. -- emphasis added This result shows that rumors that 'climate models can't include cosmic ray->cloud effects' and "... solar-mediated variations in the intensity of cosmic rays bombarding the earth are indeed responsible for the temperature variations ..." are much exaggerated. Or perhaps it's all been Much Ado About Nothing: Marry, sir, they have committed false report...
59131. Tsumetai at 22:40 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       

       For contrarians like Lindzen, climate sensitivity must be low, or they have no case to make. They have acknowledged that GHGs will cause warming, and their only argument against taking serious action to reduce GHG emissions is this premise that the GHG increase won't cause very much warming. That is why we described this argument as the 'skeptic' endgame, and Gillis accurately described it as the dissenters' "last bastion."

       Sadly, no. There's also:
       • Climate scientists are right about how much warming to expect, but warming is good.
       • OK, it's bad, but anything we do to stop it would be worse.
       • OK, it's worth stopping, but we'll never get international agreement to do so.
       • OK, we could have stopped it, but it's too late now. If only those damn climate scientists had done a better job of warning us!
       Could probably fit a few more steps in there somewhere, too.
59132. chriskoz at 22:28 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       alexharv074@26, you said: Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks. I could give you plenty of examples, the most obvious being the graphics at the left hand side of every page - "Christy Crocks", etc. "Christy Crocks" is a personal attack. You know that right? Your assessment of the nature of SkS articles is false and indicates that you likely misunderstand the meaning of "personal attack". Therefore, please take a note of the correct meaning of the term you are using, i.e. in wikipedia: ad hominem [...] is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it The characterization of someone's discourse as "Crocks" (slang term for "foolish talk, nonsense") does not imply "personal attack". It may be considered verbal abuse if it is not justified, however IMO it is justified and understood if you click at "Christy Crocks" button and read the author's debunking of various arguments by prof Cristy. Please also note that verbal abuse is not ad hominen. A hand waving statement "You know that right?" is the only support of your assessment. It is not only meaningless but can be considered the form of "shouting" similar to "upper-casing" prohibited by the comment policy on this site.
59133. CBDunkerson at 21:48 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex #26 wrote: "That is, indeed, an ad hominem attack" In reference to: "[Lindzen] is one of the relatively more credible climate contrarians (although he has a long history of taking contrarian positions on nearly every climate-related issue, and being almost universally wrong on those issues)". 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers to a claim that a person possesses some negative trait completely unrelated to the topic of discussion in the hope that this will lead others to disregard that person's position on the topic. Lindzen's history on other 'climate-related issues' is certainly not completely unrelated to his 'cloud iris' position. Saying 'Lindzen does not make his alimony payments' (note: I have no idea if Lindzen has ever been married / even has alimony payments) would be an ad hominem argument to raise in regards to his stance on climate science. His previous stances on climate science are not. You seem to be redefining 'ad hominem' as 'said something bad about a person'. Skeptical Science does indeed say negative things about people... but that is not 'ad hominem' as the term is commonly understood. Rather, it is known as criticism. These people have said things about climate science which are provably untrue. Identifying these false climate science positions and explaining why they are wrong is basically the purpose of this web-site. Thus, you'll see plenty of criticism, but it will be on topic (i.e. relevant to climate change) and thus not 'ad hominem'.
59134. Daniel Bailey at 21:25 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       

       "Is there some kine of Associate 'skeptic' Press that provides text for folks to use in their blogs?"

       Yes. (needless to say, that was the right question)
59135. pauls at 21:19 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Bob Loblaw, I've found a nice, simple description of slab-ocean models: http://www.boinc-wiki.info/Slab_Model The ocean heat transports are the currents moving heat around the planet. Prescribing them means the model doesn't have to calculate dynamically, another reason ocean modelling doesn't have much influence on measured ECS on GCMs. The point I'm making about the shallowness of the slab-ocean is this: 'As the ocean is simplified it does not take a long time for the ocean to fully adjust to the new forcings and therefore the climate does not take anywhere near as long to settle down into its final pattern. (Like 20 model years instead of over 200 model years.) You can therefore get a reasonable idea of the overall effect of a forcing like an x% increase in CO2 in a shorter amount of computer time.'
59136. les at 21:10 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       50 - Skywatcher.. I know this is off topic (so, fine if this post is deleted) But, Do you know how that works? The phrase is, e.g. both by A. Watts and the Site Admin of climate realists and else where Is there some kine of Associate 'skeptic' Press that provides text for folks to use in their blogs? There's no copyright or attribution on those sites...
59137. Cole at 19:49 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

       Please note that you have already been warned and counseled about the requirements to adhere to this site's Comments Policy. Posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, ideological or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

59138. Kevin C at 19:29 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Alex: I think you have still misundertood or misread Dana's argument. The first half of the article, whose conclusion you quoted and objected to in your first post, is not about the value of the EQS. It is about the fact that Lindzen either misunderstands or misrepresents the very meaning of the term. Dana's argument would stand whether the actual value is 3.0C, or 2.3C, or even 1.5C. Thus, arguing about the value is a strawman. In the second half of the article Dana discusses what is, as far as I am aware, the most recent comprehensive review of climate sensitivity in the literature. If you know a more recent one, then please tell us. You mention some recent papers, but I notice you don't mention Kirk-Davidoff (2009) or Tanaka (2009). There are many other recent works you've missed, off the top of my head Padilla et al (2011) and a 2011 paper by Cook? at Leeds. Given the different definitions of EQS as highlighted by Hansen & Sato's 'Paleoclimate implications', a comprehensive review is non trivial, and probably worthy of another Nature paper rather than half a blog post.
59139. garethman at 19:13 PM on 8 May 2012
       Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
       @Dragonwyst. excellent post. Your skill at observation and analysis of a situation gained from your nursing profession shines through. Only issue I would dispute is that there is no such thing as ‘only’ a nurse. All nurses are stars in their own right and have a lot to contribute to the methodology of climate science.
59140. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:07 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       To follow up on Rob P's comment, let me put up a simple analogy that explains why a suggestion that we can determine longer term CS from what has transpired to date is wrong. I own a swimming pool complex made up of 3 toddlers wading pools and an olympic size swimming pool. These pools are all connected by modest size pipes so they share a common water level. For convenience I label the toddlers pools A, I & L, and the Olympic pool O. I have a simple float valve system that maintains the overall water level - if it is a bit low the float valve starts to let some water in and brings the level back up until the float valve shuts off. I look at my pool complex and decide that the overall water level is being maintained too low so I adjust the float-valve to maintain a higher level. So water start to flow in. The float valve is located in my 'A' toddlers pool so this starts to fill. And the level in A starts to rise compared to the other 3 pools. As a result of this flows start to happen in the pipes connecting all the pools, transferring some water from A to I, L and O. So what will happen eventually? The levels of all the pools will reach a new equilibrium and the float valve will close. But what happens in the short term? Initially the level in A starts to rise because water is being added to it. So now it is higher than the other pools, so this start to create flows in the pipes across to the other pools. Eventually the flow out of A in the pipes matches the flow rate being added to A by the float valve. At this point the water level in A can't rise until the water levels in the other pools rises. This would only matter a little if we were just dealing with 'I' and 'L'. They are similar sizes to 'A' so the net impact of their presence would be to reduce the rate at which A is filled to one third. But O is an Olympic size pool. It is huge compared to the toddlers pools. So in the end, the rate at which the water level rises is limited by O. To raise the level of A by 1 inch, I have to add enough water to also raise I, L and particularly O, by 1 inch. So if I sit there with a ruler measuring the rise in A every 10 minutes after I start I will completely underestimate how long it will take to fill A because the volume of O is the main determining factor. So how does my analogy relate to Climate Change? The water is Heat. The water level is Temperature. A is the Atmosphere, I is Ice, L is Land and O is the oceans. The relative size of my 4 pools? A is 3, I is 3, L is 4, O is 90 - these proportions come from the last IPCC report. And the Float Valve? That is GH gas levels. Adding GH gases is akin to adjusting the float valve to raise the water level. So we add some GH gases, adjust the valve for a higher water level, then sit back and watch. At first Air temperatures rise. Then Ice melt and Land temperatures start to follow. And the Ocean starts to warm - slowly. So if we add some GH gases; adjust the float valve, the first response we see is that the water level in 'A' starts to rise. This is the transient climate response, the Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS). Then the drain of water (heat) across to I, L & O will start to slow this rise and impose a slower rise rate, driven mainly by the size of 'O'. Eventually, over a much longer time period, all 4 pools will reach balance. This is the Fast Climate Response; remember, climate is about Mother Nature's timescales - decades are fast! The long term Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity over centuries and millenia is the equivalent of remodeling the swimming complex, changing the pumps and putting in different sized pipes. But there is an additional wrinkle to this. We haven't adjusted the float valve once and that's it! We keep on adjusting it every single day. Every day we add some more GH gases we are giving the valve another 'tweak'. So the level in A - the Atmosphere - will keep rising a bit because of our continual tweaks. When we eventually stop adding GH gases, the slower equilibration from I, L and O will produce a balance. Decades or centuries into the future. This is obviously a simplified description but it is still broadly valid.
59141. Rob Painting at 16:39 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       "In Lindzen's model, there is no unrealised warming." Yes, so it is clearly wrong. The Earth still has a persistent energy imbalance (Loeb [2012]) which means further warming is in the pipeline. In essence Lindzen's model assumes the oceans will not take up much heat and therefore the atmosphere warms much more rapidly. This is the basic gist of low climate sensitivity, the oceans supposedly cannot take up this extra heat so the atmosphere warms quickly instead, until the system is back in equilibrium. In contrast, mixing heat down into the deep ocean slows the response time and allows the oceans to store much more heat - much of which is eventually given back to the atmosphere. This would signify greater climate sensitivity, and greater warming in the long-term. The trouble with Lindzen's ideas on this issue is that the climate has been much warmer in the past, which indicates larger climate sensitivity. It is the No.1 climate skeptic argument at SkS. In 'Greenhouse' intervals in Earth's history, the oceans were considerably warmer according to paleoproxy data - sea surface temperatures reaching as high as 38°C in the tropics. As Dr Richard Alley would say "That's Hot!" Furthermore, the deep oceans were much warmer, as were the seas around both poles. All of this is consistent with the mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity, but incompatible with low climate sensitivity, such as that argued by Lindzen.
59142. Ari Jokimäki at 15:21 PM on 8 May 2012
       New research from last week 18/2012
       Note that the Chylek et al. paper has been criticized.
59143. alexharv074 at 14:51 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       Dana #4, I don't disagree that Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity is an outlier. Lindzen is arguing that the cloud feedback is negative, and not many agree. On the other hand, the last couple of years has been exceptional in the number of papers that revise downwards the IPCC best estimate of 3 K per doubling of CO2. I mentioned Schwartz (2012), Kohler et al. (2010), Schmittner et al. (2011), Gillett et al. (2011). I mentioned Held's work. I could have also mentioned Loeb et al. (2012) that found a best estimate of the TOA imbalance of about half of what Trenberth et al. were requiring. Hansen et al. (2011) found the TOA imbalance just a bit higher than Loeb et al. Levitus et al. (2012) has also found the imbalance from ocean data lower than expected. Notice, these are all the most recent estimates. Are there similarly recent estimates finding higher than expected warming? You write that there are reasons to believe that Schmittner et al. might be too low, presumably echoing statements made at RealClimate. But how do you explain Kohler et al. (2010), who find the same sensitivity using a completely different method? Gavin Schmidt told me that he agrees that Kohler et al. is the best and most up to date treatment of paleo forcing. If so, one needs to see that to get a best estimate of sensitivity even as high as 2.4 K, Kohler needed to assume a "scaling factor" to increase sensitivity by some amount (10% or 15% I think), despite it being quite possible that the scaling should have been even negative (I think Hargreaves and Annan is the ref for this, I'll have to check). They also had to go with the highest value in the literature for global cooling - 5.8 K from Schneider von Deimling et al. (2006). I would forget about Schmittner et al. You need to explain why Kohler et al. is too low, if you really want to argue that 2.3 K is too low. Meanwhile I see you wrote, "first of all, we at SkS always keep our posts free of ad hominem attacks, so there is nothing unusual about this." I wish that were true. Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks. I could give you plenty of examples, the most obvious being the graphics at the left hand side of every page - "Christy Crocks", etc. "Christy Crocks" is a personal attack. (-snip-) In the case of the present post I contragulated you because this post is above average for this website. It still does, however, contain ad hominem attacks. The first one I find is: "[Lindzen] is one of the relatively more credible climate contrarians (although he has a long history of taking contrarian positions on nearly every climate-related issue, and being almost universally wrong on those issues)". That is, indeed, an ad hominem attack, and an extraordinary overgeneralisation. "nearly every climate-related issue" - really? Lindzen has published over 300 papers, and several books, including a widely-cited graduate textbook on atmospheric dynamics. Unless you want to claim that atmospheric dynamics is not related to climate it is nothing short of bizarre to claim that Lindzen has disputed and then been wrong "about nearly every climate-related issue". On the subject of atmospheric dynamics, Lindzen's argument for low sensitivity has always been fundamentally a dynamical one. He has argued since the late 1970s that the observed distribution of climate change during ice age cycles (e.g. in CLIMAP 1976) where the tropics cool just a little relative to the poles which cool enormously implies operation of negative feedbacks in the tropics (e.g. Lindzen, 1994, Ann. Rev. Fluid Dynam.). I look forward to a future post here where you have understood the actual history of Lindzen's thought and address his dynamical considerations too. Finally, in your post #14 you echo a popular internet confusion about the equilibration of the climate system. You write, "the timescale to equilibrium is something of an unresolved question, which I think we'll be addressing in a future blog post. Off the top of my head, I think that after 50-100 years, somewhere in the ballpark of two-thirds to three-fourths of the equilibrium warming is realized. It mainly depends on how efficiently heat mixing happens in the oceans, which is the somewhat unresolved question". It sounds like you think that the equilibration timescale can be considered separately from the matter of the climate sensitivity. However, Hansen et al. (1985) showed that the timescale for equilibrium is related to the climate sensitivity. Thus, if Lindzen was right, the system would already be virtually in equilibrium - the timescale for a sensitivity of 0.7 K is just a few years. Schwartz has also made the same point (e.g. Schwartz, 2008). It is, thus, a circular argument to say Lindzen has ignored the unrealised warming, and use that as evidence that his argument is wrong. In Lindzen's model, there is no unrealised warming.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Posts here at SkS are filled with personal attacks."

       Incorrect, as you are operating with a flawed definition of ad hominem (see below). If the focus is on the argument, and not the individual, it is not ad hominem.

       Please constrain your comments to the science. A continued focus on presumed ad hominems will be construed as tone-trolling; moderation will then ensue accordingly.

       Insinuation of malfeasance snipped.

59144. chriskoz at 14:30 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       MP3CE@23, "probability" is somewhat simplistic and incorrect word in this context, hence your confusion. In statistics, to indicate uncertainty, we are talking about "percentiles", which means "the fraction of the probability distribution that falls into a given range of values. So, the thick/thin bars represent 66/90 percentiles of sensitivity distribution (in common language "likely"/"very likely" outcome that the true value of sensitivity falls on the bars. 66 and 90 numbers correspond to 1-sigma & 2-sigma in normal distribution, that's why they are commonly used.
59145. jyyh at 13:59 PM on 8 May 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       [JH] OK, fine if everyone posted something like that the thread would become rather tedious. My 'canary' would probably be the increase of double broods/year in moths/butterflies which (in here) has been going on since the early 1990s and became pretty obvious by the late 90s for active observers.
       Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. It is much appreciated.
59146. dana1981 at 13:59 PM on 8 May 2012
       Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
       MP3CE - no, the thinner bars are wider, meaning they encompass a larger range of possible values, which is why we have more confidence (90% as opposed to just 66%) that they encompass the correct value.
59147. DSL at 13:29 PM on 8 May 2012
       New research from last week 17/2012
       Ari, ya got to hit this one this week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792 Then Daniel needs to do a post on it: "Waking the Caca(en)."
59148. skywatcher at 13:01 PM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Speaking of dodgy blogs, I wonder which of the many skeptic blogs Cole is parroting, when he repeats the exact sentence

       "The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC."

       . A quick Google search gives quite a few, including but not just: icecap, jo nova, hockeyschtick (and SkS's recent Comments page too of course!). This phrase misrepresents and magnifies the actual Solanki paper's conclusions, ingnoring the uncertainties. Now I don't mind debating sun and climate with real people, but Cole, if you're going to demonstrate the least bit of understanding of the literature, you could at least use your own words, not somebody else's?
59149. muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 8 May 2012
       It's the sun
       From here. "We all know a more active sun means a stronger magnetosphere... up until recently the magnetosphere (a la Sol), was extremely powerful." We all know... not a very scientific argument. Refer to this comment above for some actual data on the sun's mag field. Note the title: Overall Flux Reduction. 45 very flat years. See Arge et al 2002: Lockwood et al. [1999a , 1999b] conclude that the total open solar magnetic flux has increased by 41% from 1964 to 1995 and by 130% over all but the last 5 years of the twentieth century. However, solar data for more than two solar cycles ... show no secular trend in overall photospheric flux. More importantly, the magnetic flux open to interplanetary space ... fails to show evidence of a secular increase over the last two solar cycles. A final point about this vaunted solar 'aa' index increase comes from Russell and Mulligan 1995: -- source It looks like this increase ran during the first half of the 20th century - and then the index went flat. That is entirely consistent with Figure 1 above and the data presented above. This point is very clear: the early 20th century warming was solar in origin. The recent warming is not.
59150. muoncounter at 11:38 AM on 8 May 2012
       ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
       Now that we're talking about solar reconstructions, we're completely off topic. I'll reply here.

Prev  1175  1176  1177  1178  1179  1180  1181  1182  1183  1184  1185  1186  1187  1188  1189  1190  Next