Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 Next
Comments 86301 to 86350:
-
Ken Lambert at 11:20 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Daniel Bailey response #18 "[DB] The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs every second. Nope, not significant" This kind of remark might appeal to the emotions Daniel, but can be rebutted in similar fashion. We are looking for 25 Hiroshima bombs every second and can only find 2.5 below 1000m in the oceans. The Earth also has an energy flux flowing in and out of the atmosphere of 6000 Hiroshima bombs every second in each 24 hour rotation. -
KR at 10:10 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
johnny - ""If natural variability is in play, warming in some regions should be offset by cooling areas in others" again : wrong. " Well then, pray, expound! Natural variability includes things like the ENSO, where energy shifts between ocean and air and back again. How would heating in one area not be reflected in cooling in another and not violate conservation of energy? Are you speaking of natural variation in insolation or IR radiation to space? If so, please describe what you are discussing, rather than casually dismissing others statements. Personally, johnny, I am sensing a concern troll, rather than honest questions, given that you have simply dismissed pointers to more information rather than discussing them. -
Berényi Péter at 09:48 AM on 9 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Response:I'm open to advice. It's done.[DB] Anyone who wants to respond to this needs to do so on the Tracking-the-energy-from-global-warming thread, where this subject more properly belongs. Thanks!
-
Berényi Péter at 09:44 AM on 9 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
The issue is spreading misinformation in another thread: "Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere". It's not allowed to challenge this proposition where it occurred, we were redirected here. Therefore let's reiterate the references given there. See e.g. Trenberth 2009: "There is a TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m-2 from CERES data and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Or Trenberh 2010: "The difference between the incoming and outgoing energy -- the planetary energy imbalance -- at the top of the atmosphere is too small to be measured directly from satellites". From this it is crystal clear that satellites in fact have not measured an energy imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere, which is inconsistent with the claim they have. So far so good. But we can certainly do better than that. There was an interesting presentation on the 12th CERES-II Science Team Meeting Wednesday, November 4, 2009, Marriott Hotel, Fort Collins, CO at 9:30 am by Paul Stackhouse et al.: FLASHFLUX Update. They merged three datasets.- CERES Terra EBAF Edition 1A (3/2000 - 10/2005)
- CERES Terra ERBE-like ES4 Edition2_Rev1 (1/2003 - 8/2007)
- FLASHFlux Terra+Aqua (7/2006 - 9/2009)
Unfortunately it is only a picture one can't do much with, other than staring at it. Therefore it had to be re-digitized: Net_TOA_Imbalance_Stackhouse_2009.txt.
As accuracy of satellite radiative imbalance measurements is very low, the baseline is of course arbitrary. It is simply aligned to EBAF and has nothing to do with the actual imbalance. However, since precision is a bit better, we can still use it to track changes of this imbalance over time.
To anchor the baseline to reality we need another data source (not considered by Stackhouse et al.)
Fortunately we have quarterly data for the heat content anomaly of the upper 700 m of oceans since 1955 at the NOAA NODC Global Ocean Heat Content page.
OHC (Ocean heat Content) anomaly is perfect for intercalibration purposes, because it is a linear function of the temporal integral of radiative imbalance at TOA. That is, the average slope of OHC in a time interval is indicative of average imbalance over the same period.
For intercalibration we need several full years, because Stackhouse et al. only provides deseasonalized data while Levitus et al. of NODC include seasonal signal.
It is best to use data from the ARGO period, because prior to that OHC is poorly and sparsely measured by diverse systems while ARGO provides a homogeneous and dense dataset. Now, before about mid-2003 ARGO coverage was not yet global, so we have to settle to the 6 years between 4. quarter 2003 and 3. quarter 2009.
In this period (taking into account the error bars provided by NODC) slope of the OHC anomaly curve (for the upper 700 m) is -1.8±9.6×1020 J/year, which translates to an imbalance of -11±60 mW/m2. That is, in this period the climate system was probably losing heat, not gaining it, but the gain, in any case was more than an order of magnitude smaller than Trenberth's 850 mW/m2: "The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m-2". Therefore heat accumulation for this period can be considered zero well within error bounds.
It is fortunate, because only a fraction of the net heat content anomaly is realized in the upper 700 m of oceans, the rest comes from or goes to elsewhere (deep ocean, land, ice sheets), although at least two third remains in the upper ocean.
Average of Stackhouse's net TOA imbalance for the 72 months between October 2003 and September 2009 is 202 mW/m2, that is, their baseline is probably too high. If 213 mW/m2 is subtracted from each of their values, it brings net TOA radiative imbalance in line with OHC data.
Now, that we have the correct offset for TOA imbalance, we can calculate heat accumulation for the entire timespan covered by Stackhouse's data. It looks like this:
As you can see the story the data tell is somewhat different from the standard one. Heat content of the climate system is not increasing, but decreasing. What is more, the radiative imbalance at TOA during the satellite era is about -0.26 W/m2, which is, according to Trenberth, inconsistent with the 0.85±0.15 W/m2 determined from climate models.
Furthermore, if we suppose about 2/3 of heat content changes are realized in the upper 700 m of oceans, it turns out satellite radiative imbalance measurements at TOA are also inconsistent with pre-ARGO OHC measurements.
It probably means before about mid-2003 OHC data are absolutely bogus and unusable for model testing and calibration.
-
Albatross at 08:06 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Oh my, "OK since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of physical processes,..." Dunning-Kruger or concern troll or both? This person originally state that they " I have no idea of the natural noise of the system, so I can't answer you clearly - I'm just trying to understand what is wrong with what he's saying...", and asked to be shown some more estimate as to the magnitude of the "natural noise. When presented with the evidence, they then simply dismiss out of hand a whole lot of science and observational data. But it seems that the point is not to make a valid or substantive argument, it is to fabricate faux debate and to distract us from yet another of Lindzen's failed hypotheses. Stephen @33-- "As far as I know, no one has been able to produce a model with realistic physical constraints that by internal dynamics alone can produce anything like the recent changes in temps." Not to mention being unable to explain the known fingerprints associated with a stronger "greenhouse effect" because of anthro GHG forcing. So there are two critical tests that the "skeptic" myth fails. Phil @36-- I think the other point of the Lindzen supporters here is to keep us guessing as to what the mystical forcing it could be, anything but anthro GHGs of course ;) But as DSL noted @35, we are probably "cruelly" destined to keep guessing, because of our ignorance of course. You see, if we were geniuses then we would understand Lindzen and Spencer ;)Response:[DB] I did find out johnny wasn't from Missouri...
-
Bob Lacatena at 07:54 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
34, johnny,...since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of...
It's not a good idea to simply assume that others are wrong, and that there is nothing at all that you yourself are failing to grasp."If natural variability is in play, warming in some regions should be offset by cooling areas in others " again : wrong
And this is a perfect example of something you don't appear to understand. I would suggest asking clear questions, carefully studying the answers, and then asking more questions, until you reach a point where everyone recognizes where the confusion lies. Simply declaring everyone else wrong is obviously a bad direction to take, especially when this train of comments began with you asking a series of questions. Did you really want answers, or did you just want to set up a scenario where you could declare that everyone else was wrong? -
logicman at 07:48 AM on 9 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
#193 - citizenschallenge Thanks for reminding me of a point I forgot to address. #164 - Chip Are you endorsing the worldclimatereport article that you link to? It affords me an opportunity to demonstrate the methods used by deniers to obfuscate, deny and delay. The political intent behind the article is to show that coastal erosion in the Arctic is not new - which I do not dispute. However, the implicit suggestion that a former moderate rate of erosion from one cause is equivalent to a current high rate from a different cause is a leap of illogic which I am unable to accept. In support of the notion of 'nothing new', the author/s present cherry-picked selections from 'Arctic' and conclude with: [quote] Hume et al. (1972) include this photograph (Figure 1) with the caption: “Aerial view of the bluffs near the village recently settled. One building collapsed and one has been moved from the bluffs as a result of the 1968 storm. The beach formerly was 30 m. in width at this point. Photo taken in August 1969.” The authors go on to add “The village will probably have to be moved sometime in the future; when depends chiefly on the weather…” [endquote] Unfortunately for the author/s, the storm events and prior erosion to which they refer are widely known. The major causes of erosion studied in Hume et al (1972)are storm erosion and erosion due to the use of beach materials for construction. The full citation, cut off in its prime by the denier/s is: "The village will probably have to be moved sometime in the future; when depends chiefly on the weather, but also on man's use of beaches." (my emphasis) The erosion was formerly due to human removal of natural coast protection materials, storms and natural summer melt of permafrost in that order of importance and ranged up to ~3 meters of bluff erosion per year. The greatest driver of erosion today is global warming and the rate is up to ~10 meters per year. denier article: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/... Hume et al (1972): Hume et al For the benefit of any reader who would like to see how many other cherries were picked, here is the complete index of free to download Arctic journal issues: Arctic Archive -
Phil at 07:28 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
My reading is that johnny is postulating some form of short term external variability, given his insistence on the fact that the Earth is not closed. As to what it might be, who knows ? Its not solar cycles - reading deep between the lines he seems to be suggesting some sort of variability in the earths albedo due to cyclic processes on Earth ? Perhaps ? ?? -
Steve Bloom at 07:15 AM on 9 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Tom, this paper, to say nothing of Mchaels' and Knappenberger's entire careers, is an effort to mislead the unwary, so dismissing that as you do is entirely missing the point. An amusing exercise for those moderately informed about the details of the science is to read through a bunch of World Climate Report posts and spot the central lie. The vast majority have one. -
DSL at 07:02 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Perhaps you could enlighten us, rather than cruelly leaving us to wrestle with our primitive science. What does natural variability have to do with the current global warming trend, Johnny? Perhaps, since you have a better grasp on the physical processes, you could give us a theory that explains the current situation. -
johnny4550 at 06:42 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
OK since most of the comments seem to show a very poor understanding of physical processes, it is probably not useful to continue the discussion. Daniel : " If natural variability is in play, warming in some regions should be offset by cooling areas in others " again : wrong. -
Stephen Baines at 06:15 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
I wanted to follow up with an example. "Chaos," and "non-linearity" does not mean "unfathomable." There are ways to ascertain the importance of internal variability relative to external forcing -- as long as you can contrain some model parameters pretty well. Take, for example, a choatic predator prey system that is highly unpredictable on the sort term. Despite the appearing randomness of the dynamics, the flow of material and energy between the predator and prey, and between the organisms and their environment, must obey certain rules governing by the physics and biology of the organisms. If you observed more predator biomass than could be explained by their consumption of prey given those rules, you could infer that some subsidy must be present to explain the discrepancy. That subsidy would be a form of forcing acting on a chaotic system. Likewise, in the climate system, you basically have the balance of heat coming into and out of the system, and the shifting of heat among compartments within the system. Non-linear dynamics affecting temporal distribution of heat between ocean and atmosphere can influence the atmospheric temperature, but that kind of dynamic would have specific signatures (in ocean currents, chemistry and temperatures) that we could detect and which should fall within bounds set by conservation of mass and energy. The temperatures in both the ocean and atmosphere are unlikely to go up at once without their being a change in the overall forcing. The models we have in hand reproduce internal variability pretty well. As far as I know, no one has been able to produce a model with realistic physical constraints that by internal dynamics alone can produce anything like the recent changes in temps. -
Rob Painting at 05:55 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Johnny @23 -again the Earth is not a closed system, you seem to imply that heating of one part implies cooling of another part Err, no, that's your misunderstanding. No one is claiming that heating of the Earth, via the greenhouse effect, will stop because of internal variability. If you remove heat from one location (the ocean) and put into the atmosphere, the ocean would be expected to cool, at least somewhere. The fact that the ocean and the atmosphere are warming (i.e. not losing heat) shoots rather large holes in Lindzen's claim. "variations of the heat content can occur with small imbalances due to any cause of variability (for instance oceanic circulation), without "cooling" anything anywhere." The variation we are referring to here, is a loss or gain of heat. How do you propose the ocean can undergo variation (heat loss) without cooling?. Just to remind you, the oceans are warming. -
michael sweet at 05:48 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Jonny at 22 and 23, You need to think through what you are saying. At 22 you say "I even don't see any possibility that heat would flow from the deep cold ocean layers to heat the warm surface, this would contradict the second principle ! so obviously internal variability does not transfer heat from deep ocean, upwelling of lower layers can only cool the surface" If upwelling from the deep ocean to the surface slowed that would slow cooling and cause the surface to heat. At the same time it would get cooler in the deep ocean. Thus changes in deep ocean circulation can "heat" the surface, by cooling less. By careful measurement scientists have tracked the energy and know where it is going. When you talk about the second principle you appear to have little understanding of what you are discussing. The natural variation depends on whether you add in volcanic eruptions and solar or just count internal climate variability like ENSO. What do you want to count? -
Stephen Baines at 05:37 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Johnny, predator prey systems still have to obey conservation of mass and energy as well as the second law of thermodynamics. Predators cannot obtain more energy or resources than the environment (including their prey) affords. That's why density dependence occurs - organisms run out of resources (energy, nutrients, space). That's also why food chains can't be infinitely long and why biomass of consumers declines with ecosystem photosynthesis, and photosythesis scales with nutrients and precipitation. So despite those crazy potential predator prey dynamics, even ecological systems, complex as they are, display certain dynamics consistent with what one might call energetic or material forcing. They tend to be more likely to display regularities when looked at over larger time scales or when characerized by aggregate variables (like biomass). In a way, the situation is much like that in weather/climate science. On the short time scale one can get chaotic dynamics as energy or materials shuffle between one compartment of another...but when those variations are averaged over time, space and taxonomic groups, you get see something more predictable. -
dana1981 at 05:07 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
johnny - although the Earth isn't a closed system, if something outside the 'system' is causing a temperature change, that's not internal variability. That's an external forcing. -
WheelsOC at 04:41 AM on 9 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Logicman @ 186: "Scientists, as humans, make judgemental errors. But what is odd about the UN is that its gaffes are all in one direction. All are exaggeration of the effects of climate change." One of the more publicized retractions lately was of a paper that significantly underestimated sea level rise and therefore found agreement with the IPCC's 2007 underestimate. This happened back in 2010 and was even covered in the mainstream media a bit, and certainly must have made the rounds in more climate-geeky circles. Presumably that includes Pat Michaels. I see that Pat's piece claiming the IPCC never underestimates the dangers of climate change was published this April, more than a year after coverage of the Siddall et al. retraction and several years after widespread acknowledgement that the IPCC's 2007 sea level predictions were too low. There's no excuse for this, I have to conclude that Michaels is simply lying. Terms like distortion, misrepresentation, spin, etc. don't cover it. -
johnny4550 at 04:00 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
well thanks. My comment on the posts would be : http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-3-internal-variability.html : of course short term cycles can not explain long term trends since they are .. short term. To exclude long term trends, as far as I can judge, the argument is mainly based on computations. Not very reliable ... http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm : I mainly disagree with the assertion : A natural cycle requires a forcing. Unforced variability is by definition... unforced. Meaning without change of forcings. Non linear, chaotic systems can exhibit a lot of spontaneous variability with the same external conditions (see the predator-prey system for instance. An interesting sentence however : "The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed" In my sense, changes in thermohaline circulation are an unforced variation ! so it seems to contradict the first assertion. http://www.skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm : basically, same as #1. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-global-warming-be-caused-by-natural-cycles.html same as #2. Anything else as a "strong" counter-argument ? -
citizenschallenge at 03:35 AM on 9 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Mr. Knappenberger, at #164: “Maybe you'll find this article to be of interest: "Settling on an unstable Alaskan shore: A warning unheeded".” ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ How is that 2007 article supposed to make me feel any better about the current dynamics that are unfolding in the arctic? Can explain that what are you seeing in that report that reassures you into believing current conditions are little more than but “normal” natural patterns? It’s like, what’s the point of comparing an extreme 1963 storm with today’s day to day deterioration? And how does your favored article address the various inconvenient facts pointed out at #168 & #174 Albatross, or the above fifteen key finding (#190 Daniel Bailey) of the Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2011 entitled: Executive Summary and Key Messages? PS. One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial {further thoughts} -
hank at 03:22 AM on 9 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Tom, I think more broadly, we're all being too precious. That will be obvious to the grandchildren when they look back at this stuff, if they do. If they do their question will be: "Why couldn't they have pulled _together_?" > a number of blog posts [were] published completely > dismissive of what are now seen to have been genuine > concerns. Yeah, that happens. Don't feed the trolls. Barry didn't abase himself; he did say he was wrong. Monbiot didn't abase himself; he did say he was wrong. Sure, we've got the "CO2 is Life" and "Radiation is Life" gang actively working the blogs. That stuff happens. Think about the vector sum; if we can't pull together, we can at do better than being diametrically opposed to one another. The best answer to critics nowadays, from experience: "You may very well be right about that ...." -
Albatross at 03:14 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Johnny @25&26, "but of course I would appreciate if you can give me good estimate of the "natural noise"" Well, you could start off by reading the post written by Dana above. You could also read this, and this, or this, or this. The science and observations are very clear-- natural variability alone cannot account for the observed warming, not even close. -
snapple at 02:53 AM on 9 May 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Thanks for all these explanations. I understood a lot of this from other reading, but I thought that Dr. Mann had taken off the incorrect line. I also like the Climate Crock film and will watch your new shows. I understand enough to realize that it's not the climate scientists who were trying to trick me. -
johnny4550 at 02:39 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
but of course I would appreciate if you can give me good estimate of the "natural noise", so that it would make easy to test Lindzen's assertion. -
johnny4550 at 02:37 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Albatross : I have no idea of the natural noise of the system, so I can't answer you clearly - I'm just trying to understand what is wrong with what he's saying (at least as an open possibility, if not the truth), and I still didn't get the definite counter-argument. -
Albatross at 02:26 AM on 9 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Hi Chris @72, Just saw that paper. "We can see how much these variables affect crops... for example, for a crop like wheat, a degree (Celsius) of warming on a global average translates to about a 5% loss in production." And people are still trying to argue that AGW associated with doubling of CO2, and the associated warming and shifts in precipitation are not going to be an issue. Well, here we have evidence that agriculture is already being negatively affected. We are in the coal mine, the canary is sick, and some choose to think of every reason under the sun why it is not an issue, and that there is no reason to take preventative, prudent action. -
Albatross at 02:12 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Johnny, Could you please state clearly whether or not you agree with Lindzen that the observed warming can be attributed to internal variability of the climate system-- that is, his belief that the observed warming is within the natural noise of the system. Thanks. -
johnny4550 at 02:11 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Rob#20 : again the Earth is not a closed system, you seem to imply that heating of one part implies cooling of another part - but this is wrong, the Earth is constantly absorbing and reemitting much more energy than it stores, and variations of the heat content can occur with small imbalances due to any cause of variability (for instance oceanic circulation), without "cooling" anything anywhere. -
johnny4550 at 02:07 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
"Thus, the rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs every second." Sorry but this is nothing, since the energy imbalance is supposed to be about 1W.m-2 so 1/1000th of the incoming solar power. What do you mean with your Hiroshima bombs? it's always 0.1 % of the solar irradiance ! I was just trying to understand this statement : "But if the movement of heat from the deep oceans is what's causing the surface air to warm, this hypothesis requires that the oceans as a whole and deep ocean layers in particular must be cooling." and I still don't get the point. Actually I even don't see any possibility that heat would flow from the deep cold ocean layers to heat the warm surface, this would contradict the second principle ! so obviously internal variability does not transfer heat from deep ocean, upwelling of lower layers can only cool the surface- but still why is internal variability, for instance of the surface heat transfer processes, excluded ? or rather what is its natural limit, since we seem to all agree that it exists at some level ? -
Albatross at 01:59 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Pete @17, "Dorlomin, certainly Lindzen must have done very good work in meteorology to have an endowed chair at MIT. But that was then, this is now." You have just hit the nail on the head. What I find bemusing is when 'skeptics' uncritically lap up Lindzen's BS (Bad Science), and worse yet, try and defend it. -
Rob Painting at 01:17 AM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Johnny @ 16 - "I meant barring the effect of GHG, is there still room for variability ? I still don't understand why the OHC should stay constant if there is variability?" If the OHC is so variable, where do you think all that heat could go?. Natural variability in this context simply means the exchange of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. Consider the specific heat content of water compared to the atmosphere, if a significant proportion of that ocean heat were released to the atmosphere, we'd see rapid global warming, but the oceans would have to cool. No way around that. -
Tom Curtis at 01:01 AM on 9 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Barry Brook @19, it seems to me that you are being too precious. You want, at the same time, to consider Dr Washington's calling nuclear a "false solution" an insult, but decree that calling Dr Washington "misinformed" is not ad hominen. Saying that something is a false solution says no more than that something appears to be a solution, but is not one. Any insult you read into what amounts to a simple statement of an opinion you disagree with is entirely your own problem. I have to say that while I am open to the use of Nuclear power as probably being necessary to avoid excessive global warming, advocates of that view have not covered themselves with glory lately. In particular, at the start of the Fukushima accident, a number of blog posts where published completely dismissive of what are now seen to have been genuine concerns. Your own claim that, " There is no credible risk of a serious accident" shows in hindsight that you have rose coloured glasses when it comes to nuclear issues. I have no problem with that. Without enthusiasms or concerns, nobody would take the effort to become reasonably informed on any topic. But when you couple that with an attitude which sees any critique as necessarily insulting and uninformed, nothing is suggested as much as a closed mind. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 23:30 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
I want to add that I appreciate Dorlomin's point and it is a good one. It's just that sometimes it isn't good enough. -
Ken Lambert at 23:12 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
dana1981 original post Both Fig 1 and Fig 2 have been discussed in detail elsewhere on this blog. Fig 1 has the dubious 'step jump' in the 2001-03 period where Argo measurement took over. The linear trend line showing a global +0.64W/sq.m for 1993-2009 is likely bogus because the step jump does not show in the satellite TOA data. Fig 2 " And Purkey & Johnson (2010) reconstructed ocean heat accumulation down to abyssal depths and found significant amounts of heat building up even at the bottom of the ocean (Figure 2)." Well they found globally a sum of about 0.09W/sq.m below 1000m which is only one tenth of the claimed global warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m. Not that significant at all.Response:[DB] The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs every second.
Nope, not significant.
-
danielbacon at 22:43 PM on 8 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
I am with the others on the Kindle version, my wife will not allow hard copies to be added our library not only for environmental reason but there is no more space in our house for more books. Any idea when or if it will be available? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 22:20 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Dorlomin, certainly Lindzen must have done very good work in meteorology to have an endowed chair at MIT. But that was then, this is now. He is not highly cited (in the literature) for his climate work of recent years. Instead he has made a practice of saying in public things he would not even try in scientific public publication. "He says crazier things in public than he does in his papers" is very close to a quote from RC if I recall correctly. IMHO he has lost his moral bearings. As a scientist he should know that if he can not make his case scientifically (and considering the consequences for all of us if he is wrong and believed) then it is highly irresponsible to keep saying what he says in public. By the way Tamino has had enough. -
johnny4550 at 22:07 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
"If atmospheric levels of GHGs are stable (irrespective of other forcings like the sun) then temps will be within the range of normal variability." I meant barring the effect of GHG, is there still room for variability ? I still don't understand why the OHC should stay constant if there is variability? you mean that it is strictly constant, or that it can only vary with a limited amplitude ? (which is what ?)Response:[DB] The measured changes in heat content of the Earth:
[Source]
Thus, the rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs every second.
For natural variability to be able to explain away what we measure, there would have to be plausible physical mechanisms to explain the increases we see. Said mechanisms would also have to explain away why the measured increases in GHG (which we can tell are anthropogenically-sourced) do not also cause an increase in total heat content.
No such plausible physical mechanisms have been given.
-
dorlomin at 21:57 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
To indulge is something a tad frivolous AC Clarkes first law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -
Shibui at 21:49 PM on 8 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Just in terms of balance, there would also seem to be a need for studies on those psychologists, sociologists and scientists etc. who base their analysis of denial on the assumption that CO2 theory is proven, and hence is undeniable.Response:[DB] I don't speak for psychologists or sociologists, but scientists in general do not:
base their analysis of denial on the assumption that CO2 theory is proven, and hence is undeniable.
The current level of Scientific Consensus on climate change was expressed most recently by the National Academy of Science in their publication Advancing the Science of Climate Change. In it they specify (p. 17):
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
“Very likely” means a greater than 90% likelihood of probability; i.e., pretty certain.
All that being so, there is still an element that would have us debate the existence of gravity...
-
dorlomin at 21:49 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
owl905 "No he isn't. If his last name wasn't MIT he wouldn't get the time of day from a watchmaker" Au contrair. He is on the ISI highly cited list. http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/formViewCharacteristic.cgi?table=Publication&link1=Browse&link2=Results&link3=Biography&id=2422 Making him one of the most respected atmospheric physicists on the planet. He may be wrong on sensitivity but has made many important contributions to his repective field. -
Barry Brook at 21:08 PM on 8 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Hayden Washington, I cannot see how my comment would be construed as an ad homenim. To do this, I would have to disparage your character, and use that as a basis for dismissing your arguments. Instead, I saw in your comments a number of things: 1) Ironic: "using multiple strategies that work. The technological solutions exist, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency" Multiple strategies that apparently do not include nuclear energy, which we know WORKS and has been the only low-carbon energy technology, excepting large hydropower dams, that has been successful to date at displacing coal, or in running an electricity system at high penetration (France). The best non-hydro renewables have done is 19% (Denmark). 2) Insulting: "We also discuss ‘false’ solutions such as nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, which involve their own denial of problems." You are disparaging me, as well as other climate scientists such as Jim Hansen and Tom Wigley, and other prominent thinkers like David Mackay, James Lovelock, Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Chris Goodall, and many others, who have evaluated the situation logically and cannot see a viable solution without a significant role for nuclear (along with renewables and energy efficiency). Instead, you accuse us of denial and offering 'false' solutions, as though we were trying to hide from some truth or deliberately dissemble. As I said, this is insulting. 3) Misinformed: That applies to both 1 and 2 above. Further, if you would become better informed about nuclear power, then you might not be so ready to dismiss it. If you are as concerned about the extremely serious consequences of climate change, as you profess, you should judge nuclear power's benefits alongside its faults (real and perceived) and make a prudent decision that is explicit about this very serious trade off. If you did indeed listen to the UNSW debate and took nothing from it but MD's unsubstantiated opinion (i.e. real-world experience), and ignored everything I said, then I'm frankly staggered. I support renewable energy and any other practical solutions to displacing fossil fuels. I have set up a research project (Open Science) called Oz Energy Analysis (http://oz-energy-analysis.org) to assess how Australia might reach as much as 50% renewables by 2030. However, I also subject renewable energy to the same scrutiny as I subject any scientific hypothesis, and that is why I am surprised and disappointed that the two critiques of the BZE 2020 plan has received exactly zero responses: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/ and http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/ We must face up to reality if we are to solve these extremely difficult problems. Your approach seems cavalier at best and grossly irresponsible at worst. "not follow some Cornucopian nuclear fantasy" Throwing such straw men at me serves no purpose other than to undermine your credibility. Since when did I claim this? Indeed, my guest post on Skeptical Science, Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?, shows my research focus - ecology, evolution and extinction, and the impacts of human activity on the biosphere. I understand the concept of ecological limits better than most, so I'd ask that you do a little more background research in future before throwing around such aspersions. In short, if the above arguments you presented are in any way indicative of the quality of writing in the book, then I'm unlikely to purchase a copy or recommend it. Which is a shame, because I have a great deal of respect for the work that John Cook does on this site. -
johnny4550 at 20:45 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
I may have missed the point, but why does the internal variability preclude an increase of the heat content of oceans, since Earth is not a closed system ?Response:[DB] Due to the radiative physics of greenhouse gases. If atmospheric levels of GHGs are stable (irrespective of other forcings like the sun) then temps will be within the range of normal variability.
As we can measure long-term increases in levels of CO2 and methane (CH4) we know that the system will be in radiative disequilibrium, retaining more energy than it receives. This will occur until enough energy is retained to restore the balance at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA).
Due to the thermal lag of the oceans, we are just now receiving the warming effects of the extra CO2 man injected into the carbon cycle back in the 60s and 70s. Thus even a zero-sum emissions strategy maintained for decades will still see rising temperature levels for decades.
To return to your question, if internal variability precludes increased OHC, then the physics of anthropogenically-sourced GHG increases must be different than those GHGs found naturally in the carbon cycle. And multiple other indicators of a warming world must also be magically waived away as well.
More can be found at the article linked in the original post at top,
"How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?"
-
alan_marshall at 20:13 PM on 8 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Michael Sweet @ 10 I welcome this timely book by John and Hayden, and look forward to reading it. In relation to the argument you put, I agree that it helps explain why some Christians are apathetic about climate change. However, I don’t believe they are unreachable. Another new book, co-authored by a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian, respectfully puts the case for climate action in the context of a Christian world-view: Kathrine Hayhoe aned Andrew Farley, A Climate For Change: global warming facts for faith-based decisions, Faith Words, New York 2011 Suppose for a moment that the Christians you refer to are right and that the creator comes back to wrap up the show 25, 50, 100 or 200 years from now (before we totally destroy ourselves). Does that mean that we should go on trashing his creation until he returns? I put it to you that displeases him. It may even be, if you see bible prophecy the way I do, that some of the calamities prophesied are consequences of our environmental vandalism. Two of my own publications that may interest you are a Bible study guide Christians and the Environment, and my paper Shaping a Sustainable World, published in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, which argues the need for climate action from a Judeo-Christian perspective. -
martinrkellogg at 18:12 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
A better link for Purkey and Johnson (2010) -- "Warming of Global abyssal and deep Southern Ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets*" -- should be here (if I copied it correctly), as no payment is required to see the full article. Otherwise, it can be accessed quickly at this location.Response:[DB] Fixed URLs. Posting tips can be found here.
-
owl905 at 15:46 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
dorlomin wrote:- "Lindzen is a genuinely great atmospheric physicist." No he isn't. If his last name wasn't MIT he wouldn't get the time of day from a watchmaker. His iris, his cooling trend since (latest date goes here), his 'missing hotspot' and tropics focus, the 'clouds' problem ... it's one 'butwaddabout' after another. His own explanations don't net out to rigorous science; they come across like 'nya nya can't make me' dodges. -
schitzree at 15:22 PM on 8 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
An Interesting looking book. It should fit in well on my shelf next to 'Hubbert's Peak', 'The Boswick Report' & 'None Dare Call It Treason'. -
sgmuller at 13:33 PM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Funglestrumpet - They get away with it because organisations like Murdoch's News Corp are actively following an anit-AGW agenda. They use what Garnaut has described as a "curious kind of balance - a balance of words rather than scientific opinion". They conduct the debate in political terms rather than scientific terms. This means that for every black there must be a white, there can be no shades of grey. For every left there must be a right, you get the idea. The rest of the media follow this same method. This means that if right wingers such as Howard and Bush support the skeptics then it must follow that AGW must be a left wing theory. You just cannot have a scientific theory that is independent of politics. Even organisations like the ABC feel that they must provide equal time to "the other side". This is how the 3% skeptics leverage there media presence up to 50% or more. I started to watch a global warming doco on SBS a few nights ago. It followed a very simplistic formula of one opinion from that side, one opinion from this side. They had Christy as the token skeptic, possibly because he has a big moustache and looks like a cool scientist. They gave him 3 minutes then the other side 3 minutes then they started to talk about electric cars for no apparent reason, maybe they were sponsored by Nissan. Anyway that's where I turned it off. We know that if you were to present one opinion from each side then you could easily have 1000 opinions, 970 of which would be pro-AGW. But the mass media, especially television can't work with that, in the mind of a producer of a TV doco there can only be 2 sides, so they find two opposing views, present them as though that was all there was, then walk away smugly satisfied that they have presented a show that was balanced and unbiased. I've got no idea how to break through this kind of simplistic dumbing down of the debate. Given that Channel Ten has now given Bolt his own TV show, I don't believe that any mass media organisation, whether its TV or newspapers, will ever provide an honest comprehensive coverage of the global warming debate. -
EliRabett at 12:34 PM on 8 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Tom, Eli got a copy of the data for the graph by writing to Frauenfeld. -
David Horton at 11:30 AM on 8 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Bravo Haydn, well said. The push for nuclear is both cynical and frightening. The problem, as I wrote about 2 years ago on ABC Unleashed (to a massive response, people are really concerned about this) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30624.html,is that no matter what improvements in technology occur, the chance of human error is always there, and the consequences, as seen in Japan most recently, are extreme and widespread. -
Bern at 11:28 AM on 8 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
KR - I think that was dorlomin's point. Policy (i.e. a lack of action on global warming) is being made on the basis of idiosyncratic minority views (i.e. Lindzen, Christy, Plimer, and their friends, a number of whom have no specific expertise in this area), while dismissing or ignoring the views of the 99% of climate scientists who think we have a serious problem on our hands. -
Tom Curtis at 11:19 AM on 8 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Below is FK&M 2011's key figure modified to include a 2010 value and to change the 10 year trailing mean to a straight 10 year mean. The 2010 value is calculated from Tedesco's figure as detailed @183. The image was made purely by manipulating images.
What difference does it make?
1) The 2010 value falls within the 95% confidence limits of eight, or possibly nine of reconstructed pre 1979 values, compared to twenty for 2007.
2) The 10 year mean ends with a value of 0.9 compared to 0.7 for 2009. For comparison, the peak of the 10 year mean in 1 in 1924.
3) A minor graphical point, the 10 year mean ends with an uptick instead of levelling of as it does without 2010 included.
These may look like minor features, but viewed at normal viewing scale, they do stand out and give a distinctly different impression. In particular, when coupled with the trailing mean, ending at 2009 gives the visual impression that the most recent melt values may have reached a peak at a decadal mean distinctly lower than the peak in 1924. Including 2010 and using a standard 10 year running mean, in contrast, gives the visual impression of a still rising value which is already at the same levels of the 1924 peak.
I think this difference is important for spin, but not in science. Contrary to some commentators I do not think the use of a trailing mean is 'unscientific'. It is certainly not best practise, and can mislead the unwary, but it will not mislead anyone who actually reads the captions (unless they want to be).
On the other hand, I do think the difference between 0.7 and 0.9 on the 10 year mean, and between the peak recent value lying within the confidence interval of just eight rather than 20 reconstructed values is scientifically relevant. That difference approximately doubles our confidence that the most recent peak value is in fact the actual peak value over the entire period, at least using Lucia's simplistic interpretation of confidence intervals. The difference in ten year means also significantly increases our confidence that current melts have at least matched and will probably soon exceed those of the 1920s. It also gives us reasonable confidence that they already exceed those of any other decade.
That last point probably deserves some attention. It is a clear emphasis of FK&M 2011 that "We find that
the recent period of high‐melt extent is similar in magnitude but, thus far, shorter in
duration, than a period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s." (My emphasis) However, the recent period including 2010 exceeds in magnitude all but one decade of of that forty year period. Given that 2010 also appears to be confirming Box's very plausible prediction, it would be a foolhardy person to argue from FK&M that ice melts in Greenland will soon, if they do not already, cause far more rapid rises in sea level than at any time in the twentieth century.
Prev 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 Next
