Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Next
Comments 97901 to 97950:
-
Alexandre at 23:31 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
fydijkstra #38 says the FEU error seems more obvious than the Lindzen's statements. Not really so. Even a layman can spot gross incorrections in Lindzen's statement. He says, for example, that larger sensitivities are based on models. Maybe a working climatologist like him is unaware of all the senstivity calculations based on empirical evidence?
-
Ed Davies at 23:23 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
RW1: 1) thermal linkage between the atmosphere and the ocean is fairly weak so seasonal variability of the atmosphere can be much larger than that of the ocean (though seasonal variability would be greater on a planet with no oceans). 2) thermal linkage between the atmosphere and the ocean is fairly weak so the time taken for atmospheric changes of temperature to bring the ocean to equilibrium are long. These facts don't contradict each other, they are complementary. -
fydijkstra at 23:20 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
This post may be right, in that the reaction of the global warming community to the FEU error was more appropriate than the reaction of the sceptic community to Lindzen's supposed error. However, the FEU error seems more obvious than the Lindzen's statements. It's true that the oceans absorb a huge amount of heat. The oceans are the buffer system of the earth's climate. Why would the oceans give this heat back to the atmosphere? After freezing the greenhouse gasses, the oceans will transfer the heat to colder places, i.e. the deep ocean, but not back to the atmosphere (second law of thermodynamics). The effect of this heat distribution through the oceans on the climate is unpredictable with the current state of knowledge. Lindzen can be right or wrong. The sceptic community could have reacted more critical. So, this case study does not end in 1 to 0 for warmists/sceptics but merely 1 to 0.5. But there are other cases, where the scores are opposite. I just mention two: (1) in the controversy between Mann and McIntyre the integrity score of the warmist community against the sceptic community is at the highest 0.2 to 0.8. (2) in the controversy about the hot spot (Douglass versus Santer et al) the score is about 0.5 to 0.5. The issue is still undecided, although the warmist community insists that Santer et al proved the existence of the hot spot. -
Alexandre at 22:54 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Hey, how come Watts is backing up Lindzen's claim? Now he says the observed warming is almost the full effect of doubled CO2? Wasn't it just an illusion due to ill-placed thermometers? -
nealjking at 22:18 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
RW1: Another way of explaining what is going on: A cyclical variation in temperature gets propagated into the ground according to the heat equation. The solutions to this equation are: a) sinusoidally varying in time, with the same frequency as the driving temperature; and b) exponentially dying as you proceed into the ground. The faster the frequency, the more quickly the wave dies out; conversely, the slower the frequency, the more slowly the wave dies out. The result is that for higher-frequency variations (diurnal and seasonal), the penetration of the wave (and thus the involvement of the ground) is much less than for the long-period (multi-decadal) variations. In the special case of the straight linear increase in temperature, there is no limit to the depth of the entailed layer: it goes on forever. The situation with the ocean is similar, although fluid mixing confuses the temperature profile and can also entail further water at deeper depths. So your observation that temperature changes follow the driving sunlight doesn't negate the fact that the deeper layers of the ground and ocean participate much more fully in "thermal inertia" at lower frequencies. -
Tom Curtis at 18:47 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
RW1 @29, you seem to alleging that because a seasonal cycle which results in a 200+ w/m^2 variation in insolation at mid latitudes causes an appreciable change in temperature within a year, that therefore an approximately 4 w/m^2 forcing will heat the ocean to the equilibrium temperatue in less than a year. You allege this despite the fact that the lower the difference between net energy in and out, the lower the rate of heating; and you allege this despite the fact that even for seasonal variations the ocean never reach the equilibrium temperatures associated with the maximum and minimum of insolation. Your argument transparently does not follow. -
gpwayne at 18:45 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Nice work Dana - as usual. -
Riccardo at 18:03 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
RW1 there's a seasonal cycle in the temperature of the oceans too, they do participate and due to their thermal mass they strongly smooth the seasonal cycle. The same is true for the diurnal cycle, where the forcing is much larger. It would be much, much worst if the revolution of the earth around the sun stops or the earth was always facing the sun like the moon with the earth. -
RW1 at 17:45 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
KR (RE: 27), "Oh, my. Short term (surface layers) versus deep ocean - yearly cycles will only penetrate the upper layers of the ocean, whereas consistent, multiple year trends will affect the deeper ocean." I think you may not understand what thermal mass actually means in the context being discussed here. It's the amount of heat required to change a body's equilibrium temperature by a specific amount - in this case roughly the average surface temperature of the oceans. Of course multiple year, decade and even century long temperature changes will affect the deeper ocean temperatures, but the deeper oceans don't participate in the thermal mass of the planet. If they did, there couldn't be anywhere near the seasonal variability we have each year. -
RW1 at 17:08 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
I guess my senses are wrong and the large seasonal variability is a figment of my imagination. -
Tom Curtis at 16:56 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
RW1 @24, the following graph shows measured temperature trends in the ocean as a function of depth and latitude:
(From Purkey and Johnson 2010 as reproduced by Skeptical Science.)
You will notice that warming down to 2000 meters is strong at almost every location where warming is present on the surface. You will also notice a strong warming trend down to the ocean bottom around 55 and 65 degrees south. Averaged over the area studied, this amounts to a substantive warming. An even stronger abyssal warming has been found by other studies at about 60 degrees North, associated with the thermohaline circulation.
I need to emphasise, these are not the results of models. These are the results of measurements. Consequently the idea that only the surface of the ocean contributes to the effective thermal mass of the planet is in direct denial of observations, and in fact in direct denial of known observations for over a decade. Your advisers about thermal mass are either in complete ignorance of the relevant science, or are deliberately misleading you.
-
A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
RW1 - Oh, my. Short term (surface layers) versus deep ocean - yearly cycles will only penetrate the upper layers of the ocean, whereas consistent, multiple year trends will affect the deeper ocean. Inertia, time lag, the great flywheel of the ocean temperature - it takes time to affect the overall mass of the oceans, and simple yearly (or even multiple year issues like ENSO) will not change the baselines. That takes decades, the "30 year of significance" for climate trends. Not overnight, not seasonally, but over decades, RW1 - only then are you changing the energy levels of the ocean mass. Response time is not only a serious issue - it's one of the primary issues. -
Oceans are cooling
Berényi - I have seen a consistent slant in your postings. In all cases, if there is any uncertainty whatsoever, you put forth the propositions that global warming isn't happening/is less than expected/that negative feedbacks will save us. Now, I will be one of the first to say that OHC measurements are not the best data we have. And that satellite TOA measurements are precise, but not as accurate as we would like. But - Consistency is not just the hobgoblin of little minds. The majority of the indicators (ice melt, surface temps, flora region migration, physics of CO2, etc.) point in a singular direction. OHC measures are clearly imprecise, poorly calibrated, and only measure the top 700 meters of rather deep oceans. Are they the Michelson–Morley experiment of global warming, as you propose, or are they simply a rather imprecise measurement??? This is experimental science, not a logical exercise in a toy mathematical domain, Berényi. The mass of evidence indicates continuing global warming. Occams's razor would indicate that the error(s) are in the OHC measurements and are limits thereof, rather than in everything else we know. Please - consider the fact that this is experimental science, not a logical proposition with fixed premises, and look at the weight of evidence. -
Tom Curtis at 16:38 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Dhogaza @25, I am not sure where that came from. The graph I refered to was the one at Real Climate article discussing the error in the FEU report. It shows the IPCC projections of temperature increases under various scenarios. Under those projections, the temperature reachs approximately 2.4 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures (or 1.5 degrees above current temperatures)around 2050, or thirty years after they were assumed to reach that level in the FEU report. I doubt the IPCC expects the current solar minimum to last 30 years, and I certainly do not. -
dhogaza at 16:23 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Tom Curtis: "Ron Crouch @20, my estimate by eyeballing the graph at Real Climate is that they are out by 30 years on assuming business as usual. " So you're invested in the belief that the current solar minimum will continue for the next 30 years? Note: if it does, it says nothing about sensitivity to CO2 forcing. It simply means the sun's unusually cold. When it warms again (bets are off the current minimum continuing another 30 years), things will heat up very quickly. You do realize that there's some truth to the denialist claims that "it's the sun!" though given the current extended minimum, that cry works against them. Which is why they're so invested in "it's the sun, but not the bits we measure or understand theoretically!" meme. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:43 PM on 22 January 2011The Climate Show #5: Green roofs and Brisbane floods
Re: Camburn (9) Veteran posters like Albatross rely on using HTML tags to make a clean presentation, as you note. Here's some basic tags:
Practice by using the Preview button.
The Yooper
-
RW1 at 15:40 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
The whole ocean doesn't participate in the thermal mass of the planet. If it did and the equilibrium time was decades, there would be little if any seasonal variability in each hemisphere each year. -
Tom Curtis at 15:21 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Ron Crouch @20, my estimate by eyeballing the graph at Real Climate is that they are out by 30 years on assuming business as usual. Another way of looking at it is that if we continue business as usual till 2020 (almost guaranteed policy now due to current inaction) then cease all CO2 emissions all together, they will be within a whisker of the correct value by 2050, and the Earth's climate will continue to approach the value they give for the remainder of the century. -
Tom Curtis at 15:14 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Humanity Rules @12, even assuming that all heating in the ocean due to the greenhouse effect is trapped in the mixed layer of the ocean (approx the upper 70 meters), and a climate sensitivity of 0.5 degrees per doubling of CO2, it takes around 5 years to heat the ocean surface sufficiently to achieve radiative balance. On the same assumptions but the more realistic climate sensitivity of 2.8 degrees C, that pushes out to several decades. But the heat is not trapped in the mixed layer. Both measurement and modelling show that only a third of the heat stored in ocean is trapped in that layer, with a third trapped in the main thermocline (approx 70 to 300 meters) and another third trapped in the deep ocean. That is very consistent with the results of modelling which suggest that only 66% of equilibrium warming will be achieved in 30 years if green house gas levels are held constant at an particular level. More details at my blog. (I had hoped to link to an argument at this site specifically discussing this issue, but unfortunatly I could not find it. Perhaps Dana or some other regular who knows the site well could provide a link.) Quite independant of that analysis, as Dana @16 points out, the measured inequality of incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere proves there is heating still in the pipeline, although it does not by itself indicate how long it will take to restore equilibrium. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:06 PM on 22 January 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Added lost Open Mind links through December 31, 2009. H/T to Open Mind reader DTurtle. The Yooper -
dana1981 at 14:53 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
NYJ #17 - you got it. Lindzen plays the game that because there are uncertainties regarding the size of the aerosol forcing, we can just assume the net forcing is zero. On Bart's blog (comment #9), I'm in an argument with a 'skeptic' who's playing this same game, arguing that Lindzen didn't "ignore" the aerosol cooling because he mentioned it. It's a silly game that Lindzen allows his followers to play because he didn't ignore the cooling factor in the article, he just ignored it in his calculation. Ron #20 - it's true, there is worth in the FEU paper. It's unfortunate that they distracted from its worth by making this major error. -
sailrick at 14:47 PM on 22 January 2011CO2 lags temperature
hurleybird I'm just a layman, but it appears to me that you would need to refute over 100 years of physics and chemistry to disprove the greenhouse effect. -
Ron Crouch at 14:09 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Let's face it, the FEU may be off by who knows how many years, but at some point global average temperatures will likely reach that 2.4oC level. So from that perspective there is still some worth to the FEU paper. I'd have liked to have seen some comment on that aspect of the paper. Perhaps under a different thread? -
nigelj at 13:55 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
I think this is a key point with the sceptics position. Their scientific argument is necessary, but is poor on this agw issue. They are resorting to esentially one argument, saying trust us are the good guys everything we say is true, the others are scammers everything they say is false. They will even claim some basic physics is false if they think they have a susceptible audience. Once they admit an error they loose massive credibility, more than the agw "team". So dont ever expect retractions. -
Camburn at 13:26 PM on 22 January 2011The Climate Show #5: Green roofs and Brisbane floods
OK....off topic. What do you need to do to post the link so nicely as comment number 7 has done? -
Camburn at 13:26 PM on 22 January 2011The Climate Show #5: Green roofs and Brisbane floods
sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL... Abstract One of the more important questions in hydrology is: if the climate warms in the future, will there be an intensification of the water cycle and, if so, the nature of that intensification? There is considerable interest in this question because an intensification of the water cycle may lead to changes in water-resource availability, an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and an amplification of warming through the water vapor feedback. Empirical evidence for ongoing intensification of the water cycle would provide additional support for the theoretical framework that links intensification with warming. This paper briefly reviews the current state of science regarding historical trends in hydrologic variables, including precipitation, runoff, tropospheric water vapor, soil moisture, glacier mass balance, evaporation, evapotranspiration, and growing season length. Data are often incomplete in spatial and temporal domains and regional analyses are variable and sometimes contradictory; however, the weight of evidence indicates an ongoing intensification of the water cycle. In contrast to these trends, the empirical evidence to date does not consistently support an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms and floods Note the last sentence of the abstract. -
RW1 at 13:15 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
There is an equilibrium lag but it is on the order of months - not years and certainly not decades. When dealing with something like CO2 gradually added to the atmosphere over decades, the response time is essentially a non issue. -
Berényi Péter at 13:10 PM on 22 January 2011Oceans are cooling
#32 Albatross at 15:15 PM on 21 January, 2011 But then again it seems that you think that you know more about OHC than Palmer, Lyman, Trenberth, Levitus, Domingues, von Schuckmann, Good,Gouretski, Ishii, Komoto, Johnson, Smith, Haines, Murphy, Reseghetti, Antonov, Mishonov, Garcia, Locarnini, Boyer and Willis. You are railing against an awful lot of grey matter, experience, expertise and training BP. I do. And I tell you why. Your figure of OHC history is from Trenberth 2010 (link corrected), which is a simplified remix of Figure 2 from Lyman 2010. Nature, Vol. 465, pp. 304 (20 May 2010) doi:10.1038/465304a Global change: The ocean is warming, isn't it? Kevin E. Trenberth Nature, Vol. 465, pp. 334–337 (20 May 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09043 Robust warming of the global upper ocean John M. Lyman, Simon A. Good, Viktor V. Gouretski, Masayoshi Ishii, Gregory C. Johnson, Matthew D. Palmer, Doug M. Smith & Josh K. Willis On the other hand I have used the OHC reconstruction published online at the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center) OCL (Ocean Climate Laboratory) site, based on Levitus 2009 and updated regularly. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, 5 PP., 2009 doi:10.1029/2008GL037155 Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia & A. V. Mishonov Fortunately the NOAA NODC OCL OHC site also has annual data in tabular format with proper error bars. If it is copied to your figure, it looks like this:
Now. As you know science is never about pictures. It is about propositions, preferably with a truth-value attached to them or at least a not-known tag. Figures like the one above is only meant to be concise representations of complex propositions.
For example OHC history reconstruction according to Levitus can be translated to a proposition like "There is a constant c that if ohck is the sum of c and the true value of OHC measured in 1022 J units for year k, then 0.246 < ohc1993 < 1.122 and 0.764 < ohc1994 < 2.256 and 1.615 < ohc1995 < 2.913, etc., etc."
A similar proposition can be constructed for the curve in your figure which is Trenberth's representation of Lyman's finding.
If you put the two propositions together like I did above by making a joint representation, it is clear that they contradict each other. Therefore if they are supposed to be joined by the logical operation conjunction as the graphical representation suggests, what you get is a false proposition. As you know, from a false proposition anything follows with the force of logical necessity, and of course among the many possible consequences there is the one you are seeking. Or its negation.
The problem is the error bars do not overlap. If it happens for different measurements of the same quantity, it is a sure sign it was not a measurement just some pure guesswork. Based on guesswork (as opposed to measurement with proper error analysis) you can never say things like "OHC is increasing". Of course you can say "I guess OHC is increasing" or "the educated guess (using some as yet unspecified system of fuzzy logic) of Palmer, Lyman, Trenberth, Levitus, Domingues, von Schuckmann, Good, Gouretski, Ishii, Komoto, Johnson, Smith, Haines, Murphy, Reseghetti, Antonov, Mishonov, Garcia, Locarnini, Boyer and Willis is that OHC is increasing",. However, it is not a factual statement, but a proposition regarding the personal or community beliefs of a group of individuals. As such, it belongs to the field of social, not natural sciences.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 12:37 PM on 22 January 2011Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
Dana1981, WV is easy to measure, but very hard to predict. The prediction basically depends on the response of various phenomena to CO2 caused warming. For example it was widely predicted in GCMs that meridional circulation would decrease, backed up with observations: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p2hk155368r814l7/ Now two strongly negative AO winters have developed contrary to the model predictions and observed trend. WV is much more dispersed (uneven) in a meridional flow regime as my current below zero dewpoint is testament to. Changes in upper troposphere WV in the tropics are also unknown as convection patterns change with CO2 warming. However I should not have suggested in #27 that the WV changes are independent of cloud changes, they are heavily correlated. -
NewYorkJ at 12:30 PM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
From what I understand, Lindzen dismisses sulfate aerosols, hiding behind the uncertainty (uncertainy must mean there's no effect according to contrarians), and perhaps because it doesn't support his claims of net negative feedback. His rationalization for dismissing the equilibrium lag is probably along the same lines. His public argument is indefensible and a scientist of his qualifications should know better. -
dana1981 at 10:46 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
HR #12 - There is a measured global energy imbalance. Therefore, there is 'warming in the pipeline'. -
Albatross at 10:08 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
HR @12, I think you too are missing the point of Dana's post. You said a great deal @12 without really saying anything. Lindzen is wrong to say "the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2". Yet "skeptics" (including you it seems) choose to ignore that and try and focus attention on something else. Lindzen needs to correct the public record on this matter, and other issues as well... -
Albatross at 10:04 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Polar @11, He has been known to do more than that I'm afraid. Anyhow, posting the corrections at WUWT is pointless. -
Riccardo at 10:03 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
HumanityRules even ignoring the heat in the pipeline the heating of the ocean takes times. As simple as this. -
HumanityRules at 09:59 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Dana it seems impossible to judge the error in Lindzen's work without contemplating the strength of the 'heating in the pipeline' idea. I realise we've discussed this often here but you present it here in an uncritical (unsceptical) way. For it to be of value it needs to be based on real world physical processes and be observed. From what I can see neither of these are true. In fact it's more of a convinient conceptual idea to fill an inconvinient gap in an equation. So far the best explanations for it (by Trenberth) are based on unsubstaniated criticism of a particular data set (ARGO) or physical processes that don't seem to fit with our present best understanding of how the world works (i.e. all this energy entering the abyss). 'Heating in the pipeline' may be favoured by the IPCC but it's far from a fully developed theory. If you're going to criticise Lindzen's work based on that it seems prudent to include some sense of the limitations of the competing arguments. -
Polar Bear at 09:49 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Does anyone post on What's up with the correct info...Mr Watt can censor I suppose.. -
arch stanton at 09:44 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Mr. Watts is not known for correcting denialists’ mistakes (except when he finally threw Goddard under the bus). -
Riccardo at 09:29 AM on 22 January 2011Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
Tamino disagrees with Phil Jones: the trend IS statistically significant since 1995. Indeed, it is since 2001. But I'll let you read the original post. -
Bart Verheggen at 09:25 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Lindzen remained sufficiently vague so that the implication to the echo chamber is clear, but so that he can defend himself from outright falsehood. But looking at the substance, he’s making very much the same mistake as the NGO did indeed. Lindzen implied (though left it somewhat vague) that since CO2 equivalent was already at 86% of a doubling, the warming according to the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity should have been much higher than waht is observed, and that therefore this sensitivy is overestimated. His argument goes wrong because 1) it ignores the negative aerosol forcing and 2) it ignores thermal inertia. 1) and 2) are the same issues as where the NGO went wrong. Further discussion also in the comments of http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/food-gap-ngo-2-4-degrees-2020-no-way/ -
Bob Lacatena at 08:58 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Chemist1,Dr. Lindzen is correct, if not dead on, his figure is darn close.
An interesting, if unsupported, appraisal. I, on the other hand, find nothing new in Lindzen's recent article, and much of it to be flawed. It contains little to no substance, speaking only in generalities, and repeats talking points that are close enough to the truth to deceive the unwary, and yet wildly inaccurate. He starts with the (incorrect) "there's too much noise iun the system to see any true warning" meme. Then he goes on about the same cloud theories which he has been unable to prove in scientific publications. No one stops him from talking about it whenever he wishes, because it's a free country, but why can't he prove this stuff in scientific journals? Next he goes on to basically quote himself (or rather his 2009 Lindzen and Choi paper), saying that the ERBE data proves there is a negative feedback, despite the fact that his 2009 paper with Choi was roundly refuted, and he has been unable to publish any improvement on that flawed work. He goes on to make the mistake outlined in this SS post (implying that warming must be instantaneous, and if it's not, then it must not be happening). Then he finishes by drawing the conclusion that global warming must not be happening, in which case there's some sort of sinister conspiracy of bureaucrats, politicians and environmental groups and even nations to use such a hoax to their advantage. Really, Chemist1, I think you could be a little more critical of what you support. -
LandyJim at 08:49 AM on 22 January 2011It's the sun
I am sure most here may not check the Astronomy sites unless they have a specific interest, but I thought you might all like to read this article. Improved measurements of Sun to advance understanding of climate change The article details the launch of a new satellite to more accurately measure total solar irradience so that better calculations can be made as to how much the Sun either does or does not contribute to the changing climate. From a selfish point of view, it should help astronomers better understand the Standard Solar Model which has some faults to it and thus enable us to get a better and more accurate model of the Sun, which would also help climate forecasting. -
dana1981 at 08:47 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
I echo Albatross' request, particularly since you seem to be making a completely different argument than Lindzen, Chemist1. -
Albatross at 08:44 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Chemist1, "I will provide equations, references and further explanation upon specific requests to show what I mean." Please do. And I think you have missed the point of Dana's post. Can you please identify and speak to the specific error Lindzen has made to which Dana is referring? -
Chemist1 at 08:38 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Oceans not only slow warming but they actually reduce the total long term trend too in their great buffering capacity. -
Albatross at 08:37 AM on 22 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Ken @64, "So what does that mean Albatros? The data is useless from both Argo and XBT, or XBT only, or Argo only?" Please do not toy with me Ken, and please do not misrepresent what I said. I said nothing about either data set being "useless". Having allegedly read the literature, you should know that both data platforms have issues, but that does not render the data "useless". In all my years doing research (and I bet my scientific colleagues are in the same position) I have never yet worked with a perfect data set, each and every one of them has had issues to varying degrees. Yet, despite those problems and limitations, the science has advanced and breakthroughs have been made (some of them significant). -
Chemist1 at 08:37 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Dr. Lindzen is correct, if not dead on, his figure is darn close. In this case it is the IPCC who has made an error. IFR and heat does not just transfer vertically in a column, but also horizontally as well. Hurricanes tranfer heat/IFR to space as well and most interestingly greenhouse gases do not trap in heat like a blanket. A blanket analogy depicts a closed system which the earth, ocean/atmosphere interface is not. The planet is an open system. The other error on the IPCC's part is assuming equilibrium thermodynamics. In fact non-equilibrium thermodynamics applies here. To perform non equilibrium calculation on the entire planet is impossible, but using equilibrium assumptions leads to great errors which require very large assumptions independent of actual data. I will provide equations, references and further explanation upon specific requests to show what I mean.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please do not take this thread off-topic. If you are intending to address heat transfer and/or thermodynamic mechanisms, there are more appropriate threads. This thread is about specific issues with Lindzen's work and the ethical imperative of admitting/rectifying a mistake. -
Albatross at 08:30 AM on 22 January 2011The Climate Show #5: Green roofs and Brisbane floods
Dan and Muoncounter, Thanks for those links. Beautiful image on the front of the PDF Dan... Some of the links therein inspired me to dig a little deeper and I found some recent papers on trends in precipitation and heavy precipitation (it would be great if someone had the time to do an up to date meta analysis). Anyways this is what I found: Wentz et al. (2007, Nature): "Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades." Zhang et al. (2007, Nature): "We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel." Lau et al. (2008, JGR-A) Allan et al. (2010, Env. Res. Letters): "Analysing changes in extreme precipitation using daily data within the wet regions, an increase in the frequency of the heaviest 6% of events with warming for the SSM/I observations and model ensemble mean is identified. The SSM/I data indicate an increased frequency of the heaviest events with warming, several times larger than the expected Clausius–Clapeyron scaling and at the upper limit of the substantial range in responses in the model simulations." Allan and Soden (2008, Science) "We used satellite observations and model simulations to examine the response of tropical precipitation events to naturally driven changes in surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content. These observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods and decreasing during cold periods. Furthermore, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than that predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes in response to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated." New et al. (2001, IJC): "Data from a number of countries provide evidence of increased intensity of daily precipitation, generally manifested through increased frequency of wet days and an increased proportion of total precipitation occurring during the heaviest events. Over most land areas there has also been an increase in the persistence of wet spells." -
dana1981 at 08:28 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Thanks Albatross and Daniel. By the way, it's worth noting that Lindzen has long been making this same argument with these same errors, including in a public debate involving Gavin Schmidt and Michael Crichton back in '07."we're three-quarters of the way to a doubling of CO2 already and the planet has warmed less than a degree"
And Stefan Rahmstorf called Lindzen on making these errors back in 2008 as well. This case study focused on the reaction to the errors by both sides, but Lindzen deserves a lot of criticism for continuing to make the same erroneous claims for well over 3 years now, despite other climate scientists pointing them out. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:20 AM on 22 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Indeed. Isn't that the strength of the age-old saying about TV weathermen: "Not having to worry about keeping your day job if you're consistently wrong is a wonderful thing." Joking aside, wonderful post, Dana. (Doesn't the graphic at top remind anyone of a six-toed bear track?) The Yooper -
dana1981 at 07:41 AM on 22 January 2011Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
Eric #27 - at this point we have a pretty good idea how strong of a positive feedback water vapor will be. It's easier to measure and assess than the cloud feedback. At this point the only way climate sensitivity could be low is if there's a strong negative cloud feedback (which isn't looking very promising, based on recent studies).
Prev 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Next
