Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 Next
Comments 85851 to 85900:
-
ClimateWatcher at 04:06 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
The water vapor feedback is negative ... Indeed, recent observational evidence has been consistent with the climate model projection of a strongly positive water vapor feedback. The sonde data disagree. And, so do observations of emissions. The water vapor channels from satellites depict the energy at which water vapor emits to space. Spatially anyway, the highest levels of water vapor emission are from the sub-tropics. The dynamics ( who'd have thought, dyanmics? ) of subsidence account for this, of course, but spatially, if one looks at regions excluding high clouds ( which are far more important radiatively than gasses ), then higher surface temperatures correspond to greater emissions from water vapor. Lower surface temperatures correspond to lower emissions from water vapor. The correlation is less than with the window emissions or with the wings of CO2 emissions, but this is negative feedback. -
chris at 04:02 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
yes, very strange, Albatross; it's astonishing that Dr. Lindzen has been pulling this stuff out of the hat for the better part of 20 years. Perhaps at some point it could have been described as provocative, but it seems a little more disagreeable than that nowadays. The response to Lindzen's critique (that I quote from) of Hoffert and Covey's paper (whch was in fact published in 1992, and not 1993 as in my post above), by Hoffert and Covey is very interesting. It pretty much tears apart Lindzen's conjecture, and is astonishingly modern; it could have been written yesterday, and gives a pretty up to date account of energy balance, ice age cycles and radiative forcing. Incidentally Hoffert and Covey's original paper cited in my post above, refers to another of Lindzen's subsequently falsified assertions; Hoffert and Covey say:"Lindzen(13) holds that GCMs err on this point and that water vapour feedback is in fact negative (deltaQclear/deltaT is less than 0, because tropical cumulus towers enhanced by glonal warming dry the upper troposphere enough to reduce infrared opacity worldwide)."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud @ 87... "It only takes one experiment by scientist or non-scientist to prove them all wrong." Same goes for gravitational theory, relativity and evolutionary theory (still looking for that darned pre-cambrian rabbit). The point is that no one is even close to putting forth a competing theory on global warming. There have been a few ideas put out but none comes close to explaining the full body of empirical evidence the way CO2 does. The day someone puts out a realistic competing theory I can guarantee that everyone in the "warmanista" camp (okay, John maybe "hottie" is better) will be all ears! I would welcome a rational new theory with open arms. -
ClimateWatcher at 03:55 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist "skeptics". After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming You should probably add that Richard Lindzen is part of that consensus - his published works indicate AGW due to CO2. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:51 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud... Funny how Trenberth would probably be one of the first in line on the list of climate scientists who accept AGW. So, I'm not sure how your comment relates to the topic, and in fact, you obviously have a critical misunderstanding of Trenberth's statements. -
Bud at 03:51 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
"Recently Lyman et al. [1] have estimated a robust global warming trend of 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2 for Earth during 1993–2008, calculated from ocean heat content anomaly (OHC) data. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003-2008 data, we find cooling, not warming. This result does not support the existence of a large frequently-cited positive computed radiative imbalance (see, for example, Trenberth and Fasullo [2])." "In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.” [1] J. M. Lyman et al., “Robust warming of the global upper ocean,” Nature, Vol. 465, 2010, pp. 334–337. [2] K. Trenberth and J. Fasullo, “Tracking Earth’s energy,” Science, Vol. 328, 2010, pp. 316–317. Recent energy balance of Earth, R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0171 USA E-mail: rsk@pas.rochester.edu International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) -
les at 03:48 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud, 87 Not a fan of Kuhn, then? Can you post us some sources from the history and/or philosophy I'd science that backs-up your views? I've read a lot of that kind of stuff but have not cone across anything like you've posted by recent writers. Much appreciated. -
Bibliovermis at 03:43 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud, Words have multiple meanings. Choosing a different meaning of the same word to defend your position only clarifies how wrong you are. Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research. If your explanation for a scientific consensus is vast conspiracy, rather than the outcome of the scientific method, you're almost certainly engaged in cognitive dissonance rather than rational thinking. -
Bud at 03:41 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
The idea that the science or the energy budget is "settled" is blown apart by Trenberth. When asked by his colleague, Tom Wigley, “where's the Global warming?” Trenberth admits they can't answer the question. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate." (Leaked Climategate email: Oct. 14, 2009: Filename:1255496484.txt) -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:37 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket@46 wrote "Your assumption that the natural environment is a net emitter is true when the climate is warming." Perhaps you ought to read my post again a bit more carefully, I made no such assumption. The natural environment is a net sink, not a net emitter. This isn't an assumption, it is a demonstrable fact (assuming conservation of matter, but I would argue that is a pretty solid assumption). "Neither species of CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere more than a year or two." You (like e.g. Robert Essenhigh) are confusing residence time and adjustment time. They are not the same thing, both are well defined in e.g. the IPCC reports. "but the ludicrous, irrational assumption that only ACO2 accumulates in the atmosphere" They assume no such thing. Here is a challenge for you. Let E_a be annual anthropogenic emissions, E_n be annual natural emissions, U_n be annual natural uptake and dC be the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. Assuming conservation of matter dC = E_a + E_n - U_n Now, give values for dC, E_a, E_n and U_n such that the annual rise is less than anthropogenic emissions (dC < E_a) but where the environment is a net emitter (E_n > U_n). You will find you can't. The fact that the observed annual rise is always less than anthropgenic emissions establishes without doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and hence is not the cause of the increase. If you disagree, I suggest you avoid a career in accountancy! ;o) -
Bud at 03:27 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
It is irrelevant how many scientists there are in total nor how many are "climate" scientists. It only takes one experiment by scientist or non-scientist to prove them all wrong. Consensus is not part of scientific method. Consensus is a political process. Nevertheless, the fact that large numbers of scientists and people from other disciplines refute the AGW hypothesis from their own area of expertise, that fact alone is sufficient to refute the political argument that there is consensus among scientists. Obviously there is no such consensus. And, in any event, it is irrelevant for the purposes of a scientific discussion.Moderator Response: (DB) OK, by your logic, because I disagree with your comment it is then refuted. QED. -
mclamb6 at 03:17 AM on 13 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
Who is denying that there is some conflicting evidence? Or stated otherwise, that our understanding of global warming is not continuously being refined and improved? Generally, one side is behaving hysterically while the other relies on science. It is not difficult to see which is which. -
Rovinpiper at 03:10 AM on 13 May 2011Abraham reply to Monckton
I've heard several people say that Monckton said that Abraham looks,"...like and overcooked prawn." Yet, it doesn't seem to appear in Monckton's response. That would be truly hilarious if Monckton actually did say that. -
Albatross at 03:09 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
All, Harry keeps ignoring this rather inconvenient question initially posed @45, so I'll repeat it here for everyone to see what is being avoided: "Please list for us all the professional scientific societies of the same standing as the American Meteorological Society (for example) who state that human emissions of GHGs are not contributing to global warming." -
Albatross at 03:06 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Chris, That is a pretty mind boggling hypothesis by Lindzen! I have not read Hoffert and Covey's Only tiny external forcing to set off huge global warming/cooling without the aid of a CO2 feedback? Does he at least accept the feedback from changes in albedo? I have a major problem with his hypothesis, how the heck does the redistribution of a tiny increase of energy amplify the warming. Surely the additional heat is just redistributed by these meridional fluxes? This seems to be the same logical fallacy that internal climate oscillations are driving long-term trends. His hypothesis may , at best, describe long-term regional changes in temperature, but not long-term global trends. Anyways, I am probably missing some even more disturbing issues, but that is all that came to mind off the top of my head. -
Stephen Baines at 02:58 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
@ funglestrumpet Whether people are reponsible for climate change is relevant. If they are not, there is no reason scientifically to believe the climate will continue to change in any particular direction. It also suggests that scientists have no clue about what drives the climate -which would call into question any call to control climate by changing CO2. That is why the appeal to natural causes of climate variation is one of the most common arguments against taking action. -
chris at 02:52 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Chris G @5; yes he sort of says it in that letter to Nature you refer to (which is a response to a Hoffert and Covey paper describing a calculation of a value for climate sensitivity (2.3 oC per doubling of CO2)[*]). Lindzen asserts that temperature changes are dominated by changes in the nature of heat transport (air and oceans), and suggests that Milankovitch cycles, which themselves result in very minor changes in total insolation, are amplified by changes in this heat transport. Referring to these heat transport processes as "dynamic fluxes" Lindzen says:"Dynamic fluxes depend on motions which in turn depend on spatial variations in heating. Thus, orbital variations are believed to have caused the cyclic glaciations of the past 700,000 yr (the Milankovitch hypothesis(6)). These variations involve very small changes in globally and anually averaged insolation, but give rise to major changes in the distribution of heating.".
He states that atmospheric heat fluxes depend on Hadley circulation in the tropics, which"depends on the displacement of the zonally averaged summer surface temperature maximum from the equator, and on the medidonal sharpness of the zonally averaged temperature maximum. The former is extremely sensitive to orbital parameters, whereas the latter greatly depend on the nature of monsoons...... Lindzen states: "Incidentally neither of these two factors depends significantly on gross radiative parameters like CO2 concentration or spolar constant - at least within the range of variation considered in ref 1" (which is [*} below)
In other words Lindzen is asserting that the Milankovitch cycles and their effects on glacial-interglacial series are amplified by heat transport changes, and these don't need any significant contribution from radiative forcing from variations in [CO2]. He states:"In particular, if an altered distribution of heating produces a large change in synamic heat flux, then major changes in global climate may occur, even if the sensitivity to changing CO2 is extremely small"
Hoffert and Covey are pretty robust in their response! * Martin I. Hoffert, Curt Covey (1993)Palaeoclimate sensitivity Nature 363, 26-26. -
Stephen Baines at 02:49 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
What I would like to see someday is a historical perspective of how the level of consensus has changed over time. Those who deny the existence or importance of a consensus hold to the ideal of the lone genius holding out against a massed array of undiscerning like-thinkers. Of course the trick is to distinguish Galileo from a stubborn contrarian or an outright quack. One way is to track how many of their peers have been convinced by their arguments over time. I remember when the scientific world used to be full of those skeptical of human induced climate change. One by one they have slowly been convinced by the weight of evidence. Only stubbborn contrarians like Lindzen seem to have been left behind. His only resort are sour-grapes (and rather uncollegial) arguments that suggest his colleagues have been bought off. That is the way with all scientific progress. Ideas that are initially questioned broadly slowly become adopted when it is clear they have merit. A stubborn few are always left behind as critics, but I can't think of a single instance in the annals of science where the progression toward a new consensus has reversed. If Lindzen were proposing a new idea or theory, one could argue that he might win out eventually. But he is in reality posing old theories that have been superceded. People outside science just don't have the historical perspective to realize this - which may explain why he now revels in this limelight. -
les at 02:39 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Great summary. I'd like to add a couple of other fators which, I think, come into these kinds of discussion. 1/ selection bias. As you say, Galileo was right - we know that to the nth degree with hindsight. But there have been many - often brilliant - scientists who've made wrong 'strong' assertions. How does one know, for someone makeing strong and public claims, that theyre like Galileo and not, for example, like Eric Laithwaite? I superb chap, who, for years, held onto the belief that gyroscopes violate Newtons laws. Or like the late Freddy Hoyle a giant amongst cosmologists, who never really gave up on the expansionary universe? I'm not going to get into lists ;), but I'd not be surprised if there where more cleaver chaps who held out for wrong ideas than ones who struck gold! 2/ The second point is that it is not unusual for people to hold onto wrong beliefs when the benefit of doing so - e.g. lime-light, a following etc - is greater than the detriments - e.g. looking daft to other people. This point was called "being strategically wrong" as analysed by Robert Kurzban in "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind By" in which he noted that Stephen Jay Gould - who we all know and love - sustained a completely ill founded assault on evolutionary psychology for many years, despite criticisms, not only from them, but from his own! This is a good read. I remind people of Poptech... the value of his list - his fame, 'voice', internet-presence etc. not only depended on the list but the list being wrong and, therefor, the arguments it generated. It was in his best interest for the list to be wrong! A good list summarizing the number of papers published supporting AGW to a greater or less degree, or even a better use of statistics or clearer analysis (as we all suggested)... would not have brought him any fame and attention, upon which he thrived! -
drrocket at 02:36 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
scaddenp, 5/12/11, 10:20 AM CO2 residence time It was you on 5/11/11, 13:50, not I, who asked ambiguously about the role of IPCC's Policymakers. I responded politely, correcting your ambiguity by showing associated with the IPCC, your words, in italics. 5/12/11, 7:46 AM. Your position now seems to be those who agree with IPCC are not being political, otherwise those who correct IPCC errors, much less even doubt IPCC, are political. That does seem to be true enough. Scaddenp, 5/12/11, 10:23 AM IPCC, the owner of AGW, doesn't use the isotope signature from ice bubbles. The observed decrease in ocean pH does not match any mass balance analysis for CO2. If it did, IPCC surely would have used that signature, but IPCC chose not to reveal its mass balance computation (e.g., AR4, ¶7.3.1.2, p. 514) in its Assessment Reports, and chose to fabricate signatures and to rely on coincidence, i.e., correlation, for Cause & Effect. Instead IPCC prepared a graph, AR4, Figure 2.3, analyzed as Figure 25 here, in which it jockeyed the two right hand ordinates to give the false impression in Fig. 25(a) that the decline in atmospheric O2 matched the increase in CO2, and in (b) that the decline in δ13C matched the rise in global emissions. This jockeying is graphical fraud committed by (1) not plotting full scale on the right, and (2) adjusting the scale factor to make contradictory evidence no longer contradictory. The curves match only in IPCC's graphical coordinates, not in a mass balance analysis. Doug Mackie, 5/12/11:31 AM The oceans absorb a lot of CO2. I take IPCC's number of about 92.2 GtC/yr at face value. The land takes up another 122.8 GtC/yr. IPCC agrees with your bit about CO2 increasing. It is increasing at MLO, although IPCC's published data for MLO are not quite real data, but a troublesome, heavily filtered reconstitution. A proper scientific method is to show raw data in a scatter diagram with the fitted curves overlaid. IPCC just shows its fitted curves. CO2 is increasing at other measuring stations because IPCC's investigators admittedly calibrate the stations into agreement. CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 1.51 years (with 270 PGC/yr leaf water) and 3.48 years (without) using IPCC's data and IPCC's valid formula. As I said above, IPCC ignores its formula so that it can baldly proclaim CO2 to be long-lived, and thereby do its calibrations without further justification. You wrote, This means the supply processes are greater than the removal process. That is, once CO2 is added to the atmosphere it stays for a long time (= long residence time) because it is not removed. The first sentence is obviously true. The second does not follow, and is false. Eric (skeptic), 5/12/11, 11:53 AM You have the correct diagram. You might also notice that IPCC has the surface ocean outgassing 90.6 GtC/yr from the Surface Ocean reservoir or 918 GtC. The outgassing is 20/90.6 = 22.1% ACO2 from a reservoir that is 18/918 = 1.96% ACO2. The outgassing is supported by IPCC's atmospheric division of 165/762 = 21.6% ACO2 under Henry's Law under the assumption that ACO2 and nCO2 have separable partial pressures, or something equally bizarre about separable partial pressures by isotopic weight. When I wrote about AGW proponents, I was including Ferdinand Engelbeen. He is a reliable source of information, a good source for additional climate material, and possessing the good skeptical instinct required of a scientist. He is a gadfly that sticks it to realclimate.org from time to time. But he is more of a supporter of AGW than not. For example, he rationalizes that the carbonate equilibrium coefficients are valid in a state of dynamic equilibrium, and therefore would disagree with my entire summary on 5/11/11 at 8:43 AM, above. The Zeebe & Wolf-Gladrow article in the Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology, etc., coupled with the cited laboratory procedure for measuring the coefficients contradict Ferdinand's assumption that one can substitute dynamic equilibrium for thermodynamic equilibrium. This is a symptom of a lack of skill in thermodynamics, a most delicate science. The well-mixed assumption is quite false, notwithstanding its defenders. Its origins in the long-residence time assumption contradict the plain formula approved by IPCC, and it is severely challenged by the AIRS data since 2003. NASA backed away from the well-mixed conjecture in 2003, then deleted that position in 2008. Dogma trumps data. You observe that Ferdinand omitted the outgassing plume, and suggest that he is thorough. That is far from an arguable rationale. His omission instead is evidence that he is not sufficiently skeptical about IPCC's work. Your closing remark about the origin of the CO2 increase is a restatement of IPCC's fatal error of misattribution and data manipulation with nothing new. It only says to count you as Eric (Believer). Skeptical science is a blog misnamed to shield that it is dedicated to debunking skeptical science. Are you a shill for the blog? If you are a skeptic, what are your bona fides? Did you refer to Ferdinand as a skeptic in the same sense that you and Skepticalscience.com are skeptics? Dikran Marsupial, 5/12/11, 17:43 PM [sic] The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than anthropogenic emissions if the atmosphere retained all the emissions. Your assumption that the natural environment is a net emitter is true when the climate is warming. Taking IPCC data at face value again, we can say that the bulge in CO2 at MLO is equivalent to about half the ACO2 during the industrial era. The notion that the bulge is made up of ACO2 is a misattribution, necessary to make AGW work. It's half of a coincidence, not a Cause & Effect with origins in physics. Natural emissions are about 210 GtC/yr and ACO2 currently just under 8 GtC/yr, including land use. Using a linear estimate for the growth over the industrial era, ACO2 is about 4/210 = 2% of the emissions. That's likely the proportion that can be attributed to the atmospheric CO2. IPCC modified its charter to assume AGW as its baseline. Then it rejected any tendencies in its model to attribute climate to natural causes, and replaced them with anthropogenic causes. Similarly, if it were engaged in a scientific endeavor, it would have looked for any natural causes for the atmospheric δ13C to be about -7.8 per mil, and tested the assumption that δ13C was zero for nCO2 and -27.2 for ACO2. An honest appraisal here, supported by a mass balance analysis, should support whatever attribution is best for the ACO2 contribution to the atmosphere. IPCC's misattribution comes from its conjecture not just that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, but the ludicrous, irrational assumption that only ACO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. That assumption is rationalized by the equally ludicrous and preposterous assumption that the surface layer is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Neither species of CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere more than a year or two. Without that build-up of ACO2, AGW does not exist. -
dhogaza at 01:57 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry Seaward - false claims of symmetry don't make the asymmetric difference between accepting science and denying science symmetric, no matter how much you want to argue that it does. -
Chris G at 01:45 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Hey Dana, I think there are good odds of it being in Lindzen, R. S.: 1993, 'Paleoclimate Sensitivity', Nature 363, 25-26. But, I suspect getting a copy of that will require a subscription to Nature or access to a university library that I don't currently have. -
dana1981 at 01:37 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Thanks, Chris."Lindzen postulates a lower sensitivity to CO2 levels than to orbital changes."
This may be true (because otherwise it's extremely difficult to explain glacial-interglacial transitions with low sensitivity to CO2), but has Lindzen ever come out and said it? It would require some research into the magnitude of the orbital forcing to address this. I'd also like to mention that I emailed Dr. Lindzen to offer him the chance to respond to the Lindzen Illusions series. -
funglestrumpet at 01:36 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Tom Curtis @ 16. There is sound scientific proof established since Tyndal's experiments on the greenhouse effect that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. That is where the debate should be, not on whether we are the cause of the warming it generates. As things stand, all the public sees is the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and his sort refusing to believe that we are to blame (when they can be drawn away from their Lego bricks and Playdough, that is). It takes some doing to argue otherwise succinctly. If we bring it down to the fact that we must do what we can for the sake of both your children and mine and, all other children for that matter, it comes down to discussion of that action. Simple statement of long established scientific proof is much easier to present and defend, and much more likely to build up political support. Perhaps we need to place full page adverts in the popular press about the likely effects of each degree rise in global temperature together with latest IPCC predictions. Even Murdoch’s rags are desperate for advertising revenue. Surely, Kyoto teaches us that business as usual really is not an option. Arguing whether it is our fault or not is a very successful diversionary ploy that is working a treat as far as the fossil fuel industry is concerned. They must be laughing all the way to the bank. The public knows that the temperature is rising and we should trade on that fact. -
JMurphy at 01:28 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Actually, Harry Seaward, I don't think there is any comparison between the two terms. If the word "warmist" means what you have posted from the Urban Dictionary (I can't check it from my work computer because access is denied for some reason) then, as has already been pointed out, I doubt whether anyone can be described as one. In fact, I reckon that definition (if true) is intentionally humorous, and actually a comment on those who actually believe that it describes real people - rather than imaginary constructs from the fevered minds of those in denial. Denial, however, especially political denial, is a valid and accurate description of someone who, faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept, rejects it, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. This is different from, of course, those who are genuinely sceptical and can outline valid arguments without reference to money, conspiracy, politics or any form of obsessive behaviour. -
Chris G at 01:26 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
greater or _less_*, oops -
Chris G at 01:25 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Thanks Dana, this is the best summary I've yet seen to counter with when someone uses Lindzen in an appeal to authority argument. The one critique I have is that I gathered on the prior post in this series that Lindzen postulates a lower sensitivity to CO2 levels than to orbital changes. I would like to see a treatment of that if you have time. My first thoughts on the matter are that orbital forcings are initiated by albedo changes, and we have already seen large albedo changes as a result of CO2 induced warming. So, if I am correct, again, there is actual evidence that counters Lindzen's model of the world. Although, I don't know if the albedo changes we have already seen are greater or larger than Milankovitch cycle induced changes. I also recall reading that, from a mathematical perspective, the amount of forcing that an M. cycle produces is smaller than the W/m^2 forcing that some level of increased CO2 produces. That could be another tack to take. Thanks Again. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:23 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
84, JMurphy, Talk about evidence of ideological blinders... he starts withI have not studied the very long paper in great detail, but...
and yet he is able to leap to...this startling statement cannot be ignored.
What on earth does this mean?
It might not exist but we can put a number on it?
This is bizarre reasoning.
Further, what are we to make of this?
Funny how I never heard this argument highlighted on SKS before.
Was not the CO2GHG effect plus ... supposed to...?
...Hansen seems to ignore in the text as well, choosing only the highest number...
This is an extraordinary paper from the leading proponent of AGW.
and finallyThere will be a lot of bafflement flowing from this one, and I will have tickets for a front row seat.
Every one of those statements is dripping with disdain and disbelief and his post is riddled with accusatory questions... on a paper he hasn't bothered to read. -
Jim Powell at 01:10 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Another difference is that Galileo did not have tenure to protect him. One false move and the Roman Inquisition would have put him to the stake. -
JMurphy at 00:57 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken Lambert wrote : This is an extraordinary paper from the leading proponent of AGW. There will be a lot of bafflement flowing from this one, and I will have tickets for a front row seat." And there we have the bizarre accusation again (after previous attempts were made to discover from Ken what it actually means in reality) of someone being a "proponent of AGW" ! It was a ridiculous concept previously and it's still ridiculous. There is cerainly a lot of bafflement from most people over the use of such a term, but I doubt whether anyone would be so obsessive as to demand front-row seats - unless they're totally consumed by some sort of imaginary ideological battle against...who knows what. (By the way, for the sensitive so-called skepics who may be reading - this is not against anyone in particular) -
chris at 00:56 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
KL @ 79"Dr Willis is only mentioned as co-author in a couple of papers in the reference list, despite being one of the most prominent scientist involved in Argo analyses. There are several other Argo analyses which Hansen seems to ignore in the text as well, choosing only the highest number from von Schukmann to weave his analysis around."
That’s incorrect: Wilis isn't only mentioned as a co-author on a couple of papers. Five of his papers are cited [Lyman et al (2006); Lyman et al (2010); Wijffels et al (2008); Willis et al (2007); Wong et al (2005)."....and nowhere in the discussion could I find Josh Willis' analysis mentioned."
Willis's data is presented in Figures 13 and 15 and discussed extensively throughout the text. The value for the planetary imbalance for the period 1993-2008 comes pretty directly from Willis's analysis (Lyman et al 2010) etc. Since Willis hasn't published an analysis incorporating data through 2010, there in't a further Willis "analysis" to cite, and if one wants to address planetary imbalance through 2010, then von Schuckmann's is the data set currently available. And of course as Willis himself has stated, if one wants to most accurately assess ocean heat uptake (that is required for approaching more accurate planetary imbalance), one really has to consider the heat taken into the deeper oceans. So von Schuckmann's type of analysis is inherently preferable, although there's no question that there remains considerable uncertainty as indicated by the around 25% 1-sigma standard error in Hansen's numbers.... -
Bob Lacatena at 00:51 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
60, SteveS, Interesting paper. I haven't gone through it yet, but it gives barely a nod to temperature and climate, and makes no statement at all beyond "the climate warming during the steady increase in solar activity in the first half of the twentieth-century." It seems they're just trying to use proxies (sunspot counts, and tree rings and ice cores) to compile a more precise record of TSI and SSI prior to the existence of adequate instrumental observations (last 30 years) back to 1600 (based on proxy data availability). If someone wanted to read into it, though, I think you're right in saying that it can't explain post 1950 warming. Really, if anything, it helps disprove solar influence. Looking only at their graphs as compared to temperatures, the implication is that increasing TSI through the first half of the 20thcentury could account for the warming in the first half of that century, as well as some reason for the leveling of temperatures starting around 1950, but then cannot account for the warming in the last 30 years. But in the end, the paper isn't about climate change at all. It's just about coming up with a new and hopefully better interpretation of proxy measurements to establish TSI and SSI back to 1600. -
Paul D at 00:40 AM on 13 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
Can you post the link to the ABC podcast when it is available?Response: You can now listen online to Robyn William's Science Show interview with Haydn Washington & myself. It's actually quite good (coming from someone who cringes at the sound of his own voice) - Robyn Williams is a very good interviewer. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:24 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
79, Ken,Funny how I never heard this argument highlighted on SKS before. The 'delayed Pinitubo' effect seems hard to believe in energy uptake terms.
Gee. Do you think maybe it's because it's an idea proposed by Hansen in a paper that hasn't been published yet? Is SkS supposed to do all of its own science, and beat Hansen and Schmidt and all the others to the answers, in order to make you happy? Otherwise, it's just part of some bizarre conspiracy to hide the truth from you? -
Bob Lacatena at 00:16 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
79, Ken,The aerosols either reflect incoming energy while they are there and don't reflect it when they dissipate. How can this effect be 'delayed'?
Again, why don't you just read the relevant section of the paper? It's all of 2 short paragraphs long. Just search for the word "rebound" (it only occurs 4 times in the document). Come on, Ken. It's one thing to take an educated stance on something, and it's another to take an intricate, complicated, pretend-to-be-educated stance on something... but it's really unnecessary to just drop all sorts of "what the f..." attacks on something that you admit that you yourself just haven't bothered to read and comprehend. It just doesn't "look right" to you, when you read bits and pieces without bothering to study the whole? Sheesh. Please take the time to read before disparaging something. [Now you'll go read the paper, try as hard as you can to come up with reasons why it can't be true, maybe check with Tisdale or Watts for some good ideas, and then come back with all sorts of numbers and calculations that "prove" that you and they are so much smarter than Hansen.] -
Bob Lacatena at 23:59 PM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
79, Ken Lambert,It might not exist but we can put a number on it? This is bizarre reasoning.
My Lord, the section you quoted even tells you where to look. You could bother to glance at it (it's a pretty short section) before labeling it "bizarre reasoning." From the paper:Tung et al. (2008) argue that observed global temperature change in recent decades reveals a response in phase with solar irradiance change, with amplification up to a factor of two greater than expected from the direct solar forcing. However, the analysis of Tung et al. does not fully remove the effect of volcanic eruptions that occurred approximately in phase with the solar cycle, so their inferred amplification is an upper limit on what is possible. We use the measured solar variability (Fig. 21) to define the solar forcing for calculations without any amplification for indirect effects. However, we bear in mind that there remains a possibility that moderate amplification of the direct solar forcing exists.
Really, Ken, it's not that difficult to get it right (although it's certainly very, very easy to just cast random aspersions). -
Ken Lambert at 23:43 PM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Albatross #78 Thank you for the reference to Hansen (2011) in #71. I have not studied the very long paper in great detail, but this startling statement cannot be ignored: Quote "The reduction of planetary energy imbalance between 2000 and 2009 due to declining solar irradiance is about 0.14 W/m2. If there is an indirect effect magnifying the solar forcing, the calculated effect on the planetary energy imbalance must be increased by that magnification factor. As discussed in section 12.2, empirical correlations of the solar cycle and global temperature show that any magnification cannot exceed a factor of two at most. In summary, precipitous decline in the growth rate of GHG forcing about 25 years ago caused a decrease in the rate of growth of the total climate forcing and thus a flattening of the planetary energy imbalance over the past two decades. That flattening allows the small forcing due to the solar cycle minimum, a delayed bounceback effect from Pinatubo cooling, and recent small volcanoes to cause a decrease of the planetary energy imbalance over the past decade." Endquote What on earth does this mean?: "If there is an indirect effect magnifying the solar forcing, the calculated effect on the planetary energy imbalance must be increased by that magnification factor. As discussed in section 12.2, empirical correlations of the solar cycle and global temperature show that any magnification cannot exceed a factor of two at most." How can Hansen suggest that if something like Solar magnification exists it can't have a quantity more than 2. It might not exist but we can put a number on it? This is bizarre reasoning. Further, what are we to make of this?: "In summary, precipitous decline in the growth rate of GHG forcing about 25 years ago caused a decrease in the rate of growth of the total climate forcing and thus a flattening of the planetary energy imbalance over the past two decades. That flattening allows the small forcing due to the solar cycle minimum, a delayed bounceback effect from Pinatubo cooling, and recent small volcanoes to cause a decrease of the planetary energy imbalance over the past decade". 0.9W/sq.m down to 0.5W/sq.m is not a flattening - it is a large drop. So the ripple of the 11 year solar cycle of amplitude 0.25W/sq.m (0.13W/sq.m from a mean), plus delayed Pinatubo effects and small volcanoes have dropped the planet's imbalance from 0.9W/sq.m to 0.5W/sq.m (von Schukmann OHC calc) over the last decade. Funny how I never heard this argument highlighted on SKS before. The 'delayed Pinitubo' effect seems hard to believe in energy uptake terms. The aerosols either reflect incoming energy while they are there and don't reflect it when they dissipate. How can this effect be 'delayed'? Was not the CO2GHG effect plus positive feedbacks from WV and ice albedo supposed to have a forcing effect which produced an increasing warming imbalance as CO2 emissions have risen in absolute terms? Even then, Hansen only quotes von Schukmann's Argo OHC analysis to produce the 0.5W/sq.m warming imbalance, and nowhere in the discussion could I find Josh Willis' analysis mentioned. Dr Willis is only mentioned as co-author in a couple of papers in the reference list, despite being one of the most prominent scientist involved in Argo analyses. There are several other Argo analyses which Hansen seems to ignore in the text as well, choosing only the highest number from von Schukmann to weave his analysis around. This is an extraordinary paper from the leading proponent of AGW. There will be a lot of bafflement flowing from this one, and I will have tickets for a front row seat. -
DSL at 23:18 PM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
I'm inspired. I'll apologize as well, for my ad Harrinem attack. Nevertheless, this whole bandwagon thing is irritating. Yes, if one is unwilling or unable to do the math, one must trust the experts. The experts are the climatologists, the atmospheric scientists, and the wide variety of ocean scientists. Their word should trump that of materials scientists and unpublished high school science teachers. How am I supposed to take someone's analysis of the science seriously when he/she brings forth a list like Bern's or Poptech's to present as evidence that experts disagree with AGW? And how am I to take so-called 'skeptics' seriously when they remain silent on the dubiousness of these lists? -
angusmac at 22:49 PM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Dana@92, I would be pleased if you would supply your numbers for review. -
SteveS at 22:24 PM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
I think you mean this one: Shapiro, et al. 2011. Someone pointed it out to me a couple days ago, thinking it proved the sun was responsible for the current warming. I'm not in a position to judge their methodology, but their results don't seem to me to contradict the idea that the sun isn't responsible. They show that the output from the sun has been pretty flat for the latter half of the last century, so it doesn't seem that the sun could be causing the current warming (at least from their results - and the paper says explicitly that their results don't deviate from previous results for the more recent data). I assume that this would call into question the climate sensitivity, but since that's never been given an exact number, that doesn't seem too earth shattering. I would be interested in seeing someone more qualified comment on it, but all I could find from Google was comments from the blogosphere, and it's hard to lend credence to anything there. -
Harry Seaward at 22:18 PM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Even though it was off-topic, I think the posts concerning the terms warmists and deniers can be put to good use. Neither camp appreciates the terms and I think we can agree to quit using them. Actually, we are not that far apart. Any reasonable person agrees that the climate changes due to natural phenomena. Any reasonable person agrees that the actions of man have artificially altered the climate. The extent of the effect man's actions have had on the climate are the debating points. So, let's agree to get along, quit using negative terms to describe each other, and continue using this site to have reasonable scientific discussions. (Note: If anyone was offended by the defintion of warmist that I posted, I do apologize. I posted it with the caveat that it was not my defintion of the term. Skeptics feel equally strong about the term denier.) Peace! -
kampmannpeine at 21:59 PM on 12 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
... and I forgot: I bought it two days ago ... together with the almost one hour youtube clip of Naomi Oreskes this is just gorgeous... congratulation for this book -
kampmannpeine at 21:55 PM on 12 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
hi, if you need some help for translation into German, tell me. I might like to translate one or the other chapter ... -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:43 PM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket"39 wrote "The CO2 concentration rise is surely natural" If this were true, then the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than anthropogenic emissions (as both man and the natural environment would be net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere). However, we know this is not the case, we have good estimates of anthropogenic emissions and good measurements of atmospheric CO2, and these show that the annual rise is only about half the level of anthropogenic emissions. This means that the natural environment (as a whole) is a substantial net carbon sink, and hence is not causing the observed increases. The CO2 concentration rise is surely anthropogenic. It is one of the few things in climatology that we know for sure. -
FatherTheo at 16:07 PM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
I used to work in claims. One of the things I noticed was that in terms of assessing an issue, the "experts" always managed to favour the point of view of whoever hired them. Exxon and other fossil fuel giants understand this. Climate change deniers, apparently, do not. -
owl905 at 15:50 PM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
This just in: Steve McIntyre believes the methodology was flawed and there was actually better responses during the Medieval Survey Period. Bjorn Lomborg refutes the survey with proof … a link to a telephone book. Senator Inhoffe vents that the survey is the second greatest hoax in history. Richard Lintzen intends to publish an article showing that it’s just natural variations in opinion; with pictures of tropical fruit picked since 1995. -
scaddenp at 14:28 PM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Interesting definition of "global warmist". I guess you might find one at Greenpeace meeting but I havent run into one in the science world. Is anyone here a "warmist"? -
Phila at 14:00 PM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. " So a "warmist" is a straw man. I kinda figured, but thanks for confirming it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:53 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket, I am looking at the diagram that you linked (just to confirm: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html) and I see only 0.8 - 70.6 + 70 or "net 0.2 into the ocean" for nCO2. For red arrows interacting with the ocean I see only 22.2 in and 20 out or "net 2.2 into the ocean" for ACO2. Seems a little odd until we consider that the red ACO2 is really the "new" CO2 and about 1/3 of the 6.4 "new" Gt/yr goes into the ocean, about 1/6 of the 6.4 into the biosphere and the rest (1/2 of the 6.4) ends up in the atmosphere. I'm not sure the IPCC directly defines "well-mixed" but (CAGW skeptic) Jack Barrett has a nice graph of the isotope ratios as they vary by season and latitude: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page33.htm which shows that mixing between hemispheres is generally slower than a season otherwise the NH peaks would bleed into the SH instead being damped out by the seasonal vegetation uptake in the NH. Both Barrett and Ferdinand Engelbeen (another skeptic) show that CO2 is well mixed in most circumstances (F.E. here: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#Variations_due_to_local_circumstances:) #3, some of the rise in CO2 is indeed "surely natural" but only a few percent. The reason is that without man-made CO2, there would have been a natural rise in CO2 of about 5 ppmv due to natural warming from the LIA (sorry I don't have a reference from that, but again it is from CAGW skeptic sources that consider the majority of observed warming to be natural). The analysis of M Loa raw data is in the link from F.E. above, very much worth reading. In particular, where he talks about reasons for local variations (e.g. upslope winds from local agriculture which lowers the CO2). No mention of pacific ocean outgassing and F.E. is nothing if not thorough. BUt remember that even though some small amount of the rise is "natural", the entire increase in CO2 atmosphere comes from the anthropogenic sources since nature is actually absorbing about 1/2 of the ACO2 as I pointed out above. -
Albatross at 11:41 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken @77, I'm not sure how your quote is meant to help your case, I know that you have attached your horse to this "missing heat" cart and are reluctant to change your mindset, but please be open minded. I'm not sure why you insist on being focussed on the 0-700 m layer (although I have an idea or two), von Shuckmann's research (and that of Hansen et al. and Trenberth) suggest that one really ought to be going two to three times that depth to better capture what is going on. So using the 0-1500 m or 0-2000 m data versus the 0-700 m data makes a notable difference, and we all know that the mean depth of the oceans is much, much greater than 700 m. You say "It looks like Von Schuckmann is the likely outlier amongst the OHC analyses here. " That would be your opinion, but von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) is a published paper, not preliminary data as you admit. Willis is looking at only the 0-700 m Argo data (see above comments), so that makes comparison with von Shuckmann's data difficult. And that is likely the reaosn that Willis is 'finding' a much weaker warming trend. This is not new, Trenberth came to the same conclusion back in 2010. Please read Hansen et al. (2011, in review), I was quoted some pertinent portions of the text. You seemed to have missed/ignored this on the first pass (see #71 for full quotes). "A verdict is provided by the ocean heat uptake found by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011), 0.42 W/m2 for 2005-2010, averaged over the planet. Adding the small terms for heat uptake in the deeper ocean, warming of the ground and atmosphere, and melting of ice, the net planetary energy imbalance exceeded +0.5 W/m2 during the solar minimum. " "The error estimated by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) for ocean heat uptake in the upper 2000 m of the ocean, ± 0.1 W/m2 for the ocean area or ± 0.07 W/m2 for the planetary energy imbalance, does not include an estimate for any remaining systematic calibration errors that may exist."
Prev 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 Next
