Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 Next
Comments 85951 to 86000:
-
Utahn at 05:14 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry you said earlier that one problem was that: "First,the researchers excluded from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth (i.e., solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers)." A quick example from my field (rheumatology, a subspecialty of internal medicine): Suppose you wanted to find out the current scientific consensus on how to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis. If you surveyed rheumatologists who treat the most patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and are doing active research on rheumatoid arthritis, you would get the most scientifically sound answer to your question. You would expect a somewhat less sound answer if you surveyed, orthopedists, physical therapists, chiropracters, sports medicine doctors, or general internists, even though they might all have something to do with "arthritis". The most scientifically sound answer would come from the ones actively working in and doing research in the field in question don't you think? -
Chris G at 05:11 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Back on Lindzen, it is a curious thing that someone whose own model of how climate works is full of incorrect premises should spend so much time criticizing the models used by the IPCC. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:11 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
100, Albatross Interesting. Are you aware of any agencies that "dis-endorse" climate change? If 97 out of 100 scientists isn't good enough for some people, how about 100 out of 100 agencies and organizations populated by large numbers of scientists, and which in and of themselves have little to gain (financially) by supporting any one theory or another? How about it? Are there any real agencies out there that have publicly refuted climate change (and we're not including organizations like The Cato Heartland Freedom and Liberty Institute for Energy, Science, and Free Markets and Definitely Against Rabid Socialism and Such [a subsidiary of Exxon Mobile])? -
Chris G at 05:08 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Les, on second, read, I think I misunderstood your point on the first go. Please disregard my last comment. -
chris at 05:06 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Here's a copy of the Nature letter (by Dr. Lindzen) and response (by Drs Hoffert and Covey) I excerpted from in my post @7 above. The Hoffert/Covey response is very good... -
Chris G at 05:02 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Les, Not that it matters, but I think the odds are against it. As for your reference to Poptech's list, I'll admit to some curiosity about it, but he lost me when he claimed to have a better understanding of what some papers mean than the persons who wrote them. -
Albatross at 04:44 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry @98, "I don't know of any scientists period that would make that statment." Bad news, I'm a scientist and I made that statement. But then again, you don't know me ;) As for agencies who have issued statements on the theory of AGW (from here) Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies: African Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Kenya National Academy of Sciences Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Uganda National Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Tanzania Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences Zambia Academy of Sciences Sudan Academy of Sciences Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus: Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences" -
les at 04:40 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
History shows that at least one person who thought hes was Galilao was right. It follows that "it is possible for someone who thinks they are Galilao to be right." from which we derive "not all people who think they are Galilao are mistaken". Any good? (I'm sitting for my Clinate "skeptic" exams. Think I'll pass?) -
DSL at 04:37 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud, Lyman and OHC are discussed here. If you still have questions, ask them there. Aye, Rob, at 94. Would it not be most excellent if it turned out that the planet isn't warming as we think it is, or that some mechanism is going to kick in and bring cooling? John's book would stop selling, but I suspect he wouldn't mind so much. Indeed, it would be the opportunity for another book: What Went Right. But everything's about probability, and right now a much warmer coming century is much, much more likely than temperature-as-usual or cooling. It also seems silly to think that climate scientists will "win" somehow by predicting a warmer planet. Such a hoax would be readily dismissed within a decade or two, and the income gained from employment would be balanced by the eventual inability to gain employment in one's chosen field. And what happens to scientists in a warmer future, if we go BAU? It's not like climatology is going to expand as a field. It's likely going to contract, as government spending will need to be shifted to mitigation, damage control, and infrastructure construction/reconstruction as migrations (forced and voluntary) occur. -
Chris G at 04:33 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
FWIW, I think I connected the wrong dots. Covey references Lindzen (1993), which I took to be an actual article with particulars, where he meant the same discussion piece that dankd linked in Lindzen #4. I suspect another, possibly more important piece of work, for this discussion, is referenced by Covey as Kirk-Davidoff, D. B. and Lindzen, R. S.: 1993, Paper presented at the American Geophysical Union annual Fall .Meeting, San Francisco, CA. which might also be known as Kirk-Davidoff, D.B., and R.S. Lindzen, 1993: On the Role of Meridional Energy Fluxes in Climate Change. Oral Presentation, Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union. http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd/CV.pdf I have not found a publication of that paper by the same name. I'm wondering if dankd the poster here is Daniel Kirk-Davidhoff, the primary author of the paper above, and if so, if he could shed some light on the different mechanics between orbital and GHG forcings. -
Harry Seaward at 04:32 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Alb at 86 I don't know of any scientists period that would make that statment. Stands to reason the professional scientific societies would not either. I thought we all agreed that human GHG emissions are making some sort of contribution to global warming. And, remember this survey referenced in the article starting this thread is referring to this questions: "2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Activity can mean and does imply other factors other than GHG emissions. The question is not inconvenient, it is merely inept. -
JMurphy at 04:31 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud wrote : "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." Can you define "large numbers" and compare it to the total number of scientists ? Do you also agree with the "scientists and people from other disciplines" who reckon they can refute Evolution, HIV/AIDS, Smoking/Cancer, the Greenhouse Effect, etc., etc. ? Can I ask again : do you agree with the 100 scientists I pointed you towards here ? If not, could you explain why ? What have "political argument[s]" got to do with a consensus among scientists ? Do you think the consensus over Evolution is also a "political argument" ? Do you even believe in Evolution ? Are you Poptech or do you just love to repeat his assertions about so-called refutations ? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 04:27 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Statistics show that most people who think they are Galileo are mistaken. -
chris at 04:25 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
ClimateWatcher, the radiosonde reanalysis data is very problematic as has been known for long time [*]. What radiosonde data were you thinking of? There is loads of data from satellites that indicates an increase in upper troposphere water content pretty much as expected from enhanced greenhouse induced tropospheric warming. See for example: Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008 Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704 here Gettelman A and Fu, Q. (2008) Observed and simulated upper-tropospheric water vapor feedback J. Climate 21, 3282-3289 here Buehler SA (2008) An upper tropospheric humidity data set from operational satellite microwave data J. Geophys. Res. 113, art #D14110 here Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT (2007) Intercomparison of tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, art #L17912 here Santer BD et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15248-15253 here [*] Soden BJ, et al (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening Science 310, 841-844. here who state: “Although an international network of weather balloons has carried water vapor sensors for more than half a century, changes in instrumentation and poor calibration make such sensors unsuitable for detecting trends in upper tropospheric water vapor (27). Similarly, global reanalysis products also suffer from spurious variability and trends related to changes in data quality and data coverage (24)." -
Albatross at 04:24 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud, You are straying off-topic, please take questions about the "missing' heat to another thread. And you ought to know that the fine example of cherry-picking by by Knox and Douglass has been refuted by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) . You see, 'skeptics' keep trying to shoot holes in the theory of AGW, bless them, but they keep failing, and have been doing so for well over 100 years now. Worse yet, in order to try and shoot holes in the theory, they oftentimes have to resort to cherry-picking, inappropriate statistics and tricks to hide the incline (e.g., in temperatures) or decline (e.g., in Arctic sea ice), and all sorts of other antics. -
pbjamm at 04:21 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud@87 "Nevertheless, the fact that large numbers of scientists and people from other disciplines refute the AGW hypothesis..." They may dispute the AGW hypothesis but no one has yet to (successfully) refute it. The fact that there is dispute also does not mean there is not consensus. consensus (from dictionary.com) : 1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2.general agreement or concord; harmony. or according to m-w.com: a : general agreement b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned Notice that 100% agreement is not required to reach a consensus. As Bibliovermis points out @89 "Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research." Nothing nefarious about many scientists reaching similar conclusions (general agreement) when examining the facts. -
Albatross at 04:16 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud, Perhaps a more appropriate, more powerful, term to use is 'consilience'. I agree though, nature and physics do not give a hoot about polls, and science is not a popularity contest. With that said, the theory of AGW is well established. If the 'consensus' issue is irrelevant, please then explain why those in denial about AGW or so-called 'skeptics' insist on falsely claiming that there is no consilience and second, then claiming that this somehow refutes the fact that the theory AGW is real. These studies and polls have been conducted to address that very strawman raised by "skeptics". Regarding the stolen emails and the often mangled interpretation of Trenberth's words, that has been dealt with at SkS here, here and here. The latest research suggests that the 'heat' may not have been 'missing' after all, we just were not looking in the right places. -
Stephen Baines at 04:13 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Sorry...I meant a net transfer of C13 depleted carbon. -
Stephen Baines at 04:10 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Drrocket To repeat, we as scientists know these things with great confidence. 1. CO2 is increasing. 2. Stable isotopic signatures clearly indicate that the added CO2 is derived from plant matter. 3. That plant matter could only be from losses of terrestrial biomass (through land-use changes) and burning of fossil fuels. 4. The increase has been less than predicted if human emissions stayed in the atmosphere. 5. There has not been a large enough change in terrestrial biomass to account for the change. 6. The ocean is acidifying even though it is warming, (which should cause pH to increase as CO2 outgasses) That means it is a sink for CO2 at present. There is simply no way to reconcile those facts with the statement "Neither species of CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere more than a year or two." You would need to identify a massive previously unidentified net transfer of C13 enriched carbon into the earth's atmosphere. Even if the atmospheric CO2 relaxation half-life were on the order of centuries (as we think), the net transfer would have to equivalent to 1/2 the living plant matter on earth over the last 150 years. With a relaxation half-life of <1 year (as you suggest), you would be talking quite a bit larger. What is your proposed source? -
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....
Prev 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 Next
