Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for Lindzen Illusion

Comments matching the search Lindzen Illusion:

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 20:18 PM on 9 October, 2019

CThompson ,

insight is not your strong suit, apparently. Your claim of familiarity with carbon isotopes etcetera, is not congruous with your dismissal of mainstream physics & biology.

Just as (by analogy) someone who claims familiarity with mathematics . . . yet who alleges that 2+2=3 . . . is someone who is a tad less expert than he supposes.

But perhaps, CThompson, you can achieve some credibility by staying on topic. [Short musical interlude here, while orchestra plays Pride of Erin B . . . and readers wait for you to also mention Galileo, as well.] You have been repeatedly asked to say something substantive about the scientific consensus, to back your "beliefs". But you have produced nothing, so far.

A good start would be, if you can name a list of some credible scientists who have produced some evidence that the mainstream science is seriously incorrect. (And you must show what that evidence is ~ not just handwave at something unspecified.) If at all possible, please list a sufficiency of names to demonstrate that these alleged contrarians exist in numbers way beyond 1% of climate scientists. Would 20% "climate-skeptical" genuine climate scientists be achievable for you? Otherwise, surely your consensus claim falls flat on its face.

Hint: don't bother to use the delusional citizen-scientist crackpots, such as Lord Monckton, Dr Tim Ball, or (the late) John Coleman . . . 'cos they ain't no scientists !

And bear in mind, that the evidence is even more important than the exact percentage of contrarians. And that is where the contrarian scientists make a double Fail ~ their numbers are shrinking and their hypotheses [cosmic rays; 100-year oceanic cycles; Lindzen's "Iris" ; etcetera] have failed the reality test.

CThompson, the consensus exists because the evidence is clear.

I can see that you believe what you want to believe ~ and I was never under the illusion that you would be convinced by anything factual.

BTW, CThompson, you can educate me on one point ~ what is the meaning of the word "symmantic" which you use so often e.g. the "symmantic gymnastics" you mention in your last paragraph of #841 . The OED failed to list the word. Is it a new term for the latest display trick by that amazing young gymnast Ms Simone Biles ?

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

MA Rodger at 21:32 PM on 22 October, 2017

NorrisM @152,

Perhaps I should explain why I brand you a troll. In rough terms, it is evident that you come to SkS with a contrary view but fail at every turn when asked to justify that view. You appear more interested in piling on the startling contrary views than in attempting to reconcile the views you express with the views others expressed here, those which are in the main science-based.
Strangely, I don't appear to have branded you a troll before, strange as I don't usually hold back for so long. But let us consider the detail of your use of Miersch down this thread.
@122 you introduced Michael Miersch into this thread as an aside, suggesting his message comprises news from Germany of "a major backlash" against renewable energy. By the sounds of it, he is an enemy of on-shore wind power and is being invited to speak in the seat of UK government (the Palace of Westminster) by a UK educational charity, the GWPF. Of course, the GWPF is no normal charity but a cynical bunch of climate change deniers. (The last time I heard of a GWPF talk at Westminster it was veteran climate denier Richard Lindzen.) I can't believe you would not have known about the GWPF given you tell us @112 that your understanding of Miersch is based on GWPF information. If you did not, its dodgy nature was set out @114. ( Interestingly, your acknowledgement of this situation @127 is riven with the sort of gramatical nonsense you would expect from an non-English speaker, suggesting you found writing it very difficult. Perhaps the message you wrote there was foreign to you!)
It is true that you were goaded into continuing further with this, but you did so by citing in the most general terms an 80 minute pod-cast to support the case of Miersch having the right of freedom of speech to say what he does (even though we still don't know what it is he does say). I listened to what I assume is the passage of that pod-cast which you were citing. (It's at about 1hr to 1hr 6 here) What Cass Sunstein is saying is that you cannot slander or libel a person (which the German government were accused of by Miersch, but which the courts said otherwise. The courts say there is no libel as Miersch is a Klimawandelskeptiker). Cass Sunstein also says that a person has the right to describe the Sandy Hook massacre as being a real or imaginary event that was orchestrated by the US government to enable tighter gun laws. As long as you are sincere and not lying, you are allowed to say such outrageous things. This can be said as this is not slander/libel - no individual is being defamed. And apparently some seriously sick people do brand Sandy Hook a hoax/conspiracy. As it is difficult to establish legally that they are sincere in their belief (an so not lying) they are imune to legal challenges. Sunstein was also asked about malicious 'doxing' replying that newspapers do have the right to publish the names and addresses of rape victims even if the intention was to unleash violence against them. Sunstein says this is poor law, saying on this of Madison (a US founding father, apparently) "(it is) not clear if Madison would roll over in his grave if we said you can't disclose where someone lives if the purpose and effect of that is to increase the risk of voilence."
So that is pretty startling stuff you cite to defend Miersch's right to say... well... frankly, I get the distinct impression you do not know what Miersch says on "wind and solar versus nuclear" and so who can say if he is "someone who shared my views." So this continues to be a troll-like discourse here, or have you a source of Miersch-ism you have, golly, forgotten to share with us.

Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming

MA Rodger at 23:52 PM on 28 May, 2013

CBDunkerson @107.

You appear to be setting far higher standards for a "legitimate scientists" label than I would accept. Consider a scientist like say Lindzen who genuinely believes in his unorthodox scientific position despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the orthodox position. He will not balk at challenging that evidence, would not think twice at throwing light into dark corners that other scientists who accepts the veracity of the available evidence would never dream to disturb. While those dark corners continue to exist, the likes of Lindzen continue to do science a service, of sorts.
For instance, take Spencer & Bradwell 2008. Is this not legitimate science produced by a contrarian?

The problem with the likes of Lindzen & Spencer is not the science. It is their behavour ouside the science that is unacceptable, things like Lindzen's presentations to non-scientific audiences in which he makes assertions he would never get away with within the science. The same goes with Spencer's book.
This extra-scientific comment from contrarians is part of the fuel for opinions like that presented by matzdj @102. 100% of the evidence supports AGW? "That can't be," writes matzdj.
Well surely, if AGW is the correct theory, bar the science misinterpreting evidence (available evidence won't always and unfailingly point in exactly the correct direction), I say, "It can be. Indeed, it must be!"

Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus

vrooomie at 23:13 PM on 30 October, 2012

danielbacon@13, Anthony watts has kindly compiled a list, which should go a ways towards adressing your requests.

Andrew Montford (Author of The Hockey Stick Illusion)
Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Marc Morano (Climate Depot)
John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel, now at KUSI-TV)
Chris Horner (Senior Fellow, Center for Energy and Environment, CEI)
Steve McIntyre (editor of ClimateAudit.org)
Dr. Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph)
John Christy (Alabama State climatologist, co author of UAH dataset)
Joe D’Aleo (WeatherBell)
Joe Bastardi (Weatherbell)
Senator Jim Inhofe
Bob Tisdale (author of Who Turned on The Heat?)
Dr. Ryan Maue (Weatherbell)
Dr. Sebastian Lüning (co-author of Die Kalt Sonne)
Harold Ambler (Author of Don’t Sell Your Coat)
Donna LaFramboise (Author of The Delinquent Teenager)
Pat Michaels (former State climatologist of Virgina, fellow of the Cato institute)
Pete Garcia (Producer of the movie The Boy Who Cried Warming)
Christopher Monckton (SPPI)

*All* have been debunked/addressed here on SkS in the helpful links on the home page.

Climate time lag

gws at 01:17 AM on 28 September, 2012

Falkenherz, you make a typical error in assuming that forcing (the Watt per square meter value, aka the extra energy per time and area input to the system) has something to do with climate sensitivity (roughly: the expected warming, aka temperature, for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere).
"Serious" skeptics like Lindzen, whom you seemingly refer to, claim that climate sensitivity is low and that we should already have observed more warming. However, as you can explore by follwing the link to "Lindzen Illusions" up left, he (and others) has failed to provide conclusive evidence for his hypothesis. Instead, there are multiple lines of evidence that climate sensitivity is roughly 3+-1 K, and you can explore that here .

If other "serious skeptics" claim that solar forcing has a huge time lag while CO2 forcing has not, they should present that evidence. Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
To demand more knowledge is just another moving the goalpost move to prevent addressing the issue in the first place.

Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe

dana1981 at 05:16 AM on 30 August, 2012

Joel @21 - it appears that you are assuming the warming over the next century will continue at a linear rate, which is not realistic, and doesn't tell us anything about climate sensitivity. As we showed here, actual measurements are consistent with a climate sensitivity of around 3°C for 2xCO2.

Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988

angusmac at 02:57 AM on 22 June, 2012

Dana, would you please let me know how you do it?

You state in the post that, "The observed temperature change has been closest to Scenario C", and not a peep from the SkS faithful.

I stated that, "Hansen's Scenario C actually gives the best fit to the GISS temperature data, not Scenario B" in SkS Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen here.

However, I was castigated by the Moderator (DB) and by the SkS faithful. You weren't. A typical comment against me was (by DB), " Repeating a misunderstanding does not unmake it as a misunderstanding ."

Dana, I do not see any material difference between my statement and your statement. DB, is Dana repeating a misunderstanding?

It just goes to show that it's not what you say but who says it.

There is no consensus

Composer99 at 05:26 AM on 10 May, 2012

There is obviously not consensus since not all scientists agree on whats happening or whats causing it.

Perhaps you can clarify here, YellowElephant, as to which scientists disagree. Are they climatologists or scientists in closely-related disciplines? And what is the basis of their disagreement?

To my knowledge, even abject contrarians such as Spencer & Lindzen agree that heat-trapping gases (CO2, CH4, H2O, etc) cause global warming and that humans have emitted significant amounts of long-lasting heat-trapping gases. Their points of disagreement with the mainstream position lie elsewhere.

When over 97% of scientists with relevant expertise agree on the basics of AGW and, as far as I am aware, every major national scientific body (NAS, Royal Society, &c) agree with the major conclusions of climatology as identified by the IPCC, and when even contrarian scientists agree with the basics, then IMO there is no "large debate" going on at all.

Instead, there is what medical blogger Orac calls a 'manufactroversy'(*), where non-scientific interests attempting to defend or upend a status quo rely on various contrary arguments, increasingly of poor quality, to create the illusion of a genuine scientific debate.

-----
(*) I'm not certain that Orac coined the term, however his use of it is the first I am aware of. (Orac blogs elsewhere under his real name, so my pronoun use is correct.)

Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2

dana1981 at 04:09 AM on 4 May, 2012

Lucas @1 - surface temperature changes have been consistent with a 3°C equilibrium climate sensitivity. See here, for example. We'll have more on this issue next week as well.

Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen

dana1981 at 12:17 PM on 9 April, 2012

I agree that for the most part Lindzen has been pretty consistent - and consistently wrong, of course.

Personally I prefer it when people are able to admit they're wrong, as opposed to steadfastly repeating the same arguments after they've been proven wrong.

Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen

Eric (skeptic) at 09:46 AM on 9 April, 2012

Chris G, the Lindzen's London Illusions thread doesn't present any comments by Lindzen about albedo. It looks like only the response to Lindzen references albedo, specifically the claim that Lindzen is not accounting for cooling by aerosols. It looks like the argument by Lindzen is simply empirical, that there was not enough warming created by the present CO2 concentration to justify the 3C sensitivity claim.

Lindzen's London Illusions

ScaredAmoeba at 00:44 AM on 14 March, 2012

Lindzen's London Illusions the videos.
Note: The first part at least has been altered and a note added to mention the alleged screw-up, but I'm not aware that any further corrections have been made to remove the other errors.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRAzbfqydoY

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz_EYi2U3Wg

Q&A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69kmPGDh1Gs

Lindzen's Junk Science

Rob Painting at 13:29 PM on 10 March, 2012

jzk - see Lindzen Illusions top left-hand corner of the SkS page.

Lindzen's London Illusions

Tom Curtis at 22:10 PM on 9 March, 2012

I was wondering what Martin Lack (@44) was referring to, so I finally had a look. What I found was a
Wood for Trees graph, which I have recreated and shown below:

Lindzen says of the graph that

"Just to put this into perspective, a colleague took all the data sets he could find of temperature change since 1996, and, you know, this is the [incomprehensible] you could pick one or the other. It's about a tenth of a degree here or there. But basically if you compare it to the change in CO2 its pretty clear that, you know, by any normal standards this is pretty flat no matter which [incomprehensible] you pick, and arguing about the difference in these is probably a fools errand."

That is pretty incomprehensible as an argument. It appears as though he is about to make the argument the graph is obviously designed for, ie, to argue that CO2 and temperatures do not correlate so that CO2 cannot be a causal factor in the temperature increase. But he never actually makes that argument! He has a ... I don't know - perhaps a seniors moment, perhaps an attack of conscience, and switches midstream to arguing that the differences between temperature indices is so small that it doesn't matter which one you pick for analyzing the data.

Now that argument itself is obviously false. It may appear true if you carefully select just three temperature indices from twenty-two available from Wood-for-Trees. More importantly, it uses just two of three major global temperature indices. It is inconceivable that the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT should not know of the NCDC, GISS and UAH temperature indices. Particularly given that he had just been criticizing one of them just moments before. So when Lindzen say's that, "...a colleague took all the data sets he could find of temperature change since 1996...", he is knowingly misrepresenting the facts.

More importantly, and Lindzen knows this as well, over such short (cherry picked) time periods, choosing other temperature indices, makes a significant difference:

Martin may well accuse me of chasing of after a side issue on this, but I cannot criticize Lindzen for making an argument he did not in fact make, no matter what his intentions when setting up the slides. And Lindzen pulled out of making the "no correlation" argument at the last moment.

It is well that he did not make that argument. If CO2 increase and temperature increase had been correlated on the graph, then (all else being equal) a 0.4 W/m^2 difference in greenhouse warming would have caused a 0.8 degree C change in temperature, which equates to a climate sensitivity of 8 degrees C per doubling of CO2. In fact it would be much worse, in that aerosol forcing and solar forcing are known to have been significantly negative over the period in question, while the ENSO trend was also cooling. Consequently, to achieve the sort of correlation that the graph suggests should exist according to the IPCC, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 must be much greater than 8 degree C, rather than the 2 to 4.5 degrees C commonly accepted.

The conclusion is inevitable. Anybody who uses this or an equivalent graph (and they are common on the web) either knows nothing about climate science, or is a deliberate liar.

Lindzen's Junk Science

Composer99 at 05:44 AM on 8 March, 2012

If Lindzen had a real & robust case to support his claims re: contemporary climate changes, he would have published it in the peer-reviewed lterature, received the gratitude of almost every other climate scientist (who would be relieved to find that their concerns were no longer supported) and on the way to Stockholm for a Nobel prize.

Instead, he's stuck presenting junk science such as documented here (or in the London Illusions post) to political figures and, for lack of a better term, celebrities, with political, ideological or financial interests in preventing effective policy action to avert warming.

Lindzen's London Illusions

dana1981 at 06:47 AM on 7 March, 2012

Rob @17 - pretty much the same line since 1989, in fact.

Lindzen's London Illusions

owl905 at 18:56 PM on 6 March, 2012

@Hyperactive:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

240 papers. That's exactly why it's 'mind your answers' when it comes to Ricky Mit.

@Martin Lack - underestimating an opponent leads to defeat.

Congrats to the progress of Ricky MIT. Never thought there would be a presentation (at $3500/hour plus expenses (/jealous)) that didn't mention his pet dog Iris.

It's a magic illusion trick. Look for the signals - using SST to reduce positive feedbacks ... what's the trick? (hint - La Nina upwells cold water that he doesn't take into account).
Ricky Mit claims correlation doesn't mean causation ... while he tries to sell the phony 'CO2 lags temp spike' as a causation sequence.
His Arctic extent chart obscures the highs and low trends by playing seasonal slinky with the view.
He mumbles through the equatorial 'hot spot' he was nailed for a few years ago, with an updated 'yea it was wrong but I was still right about the models'. He just forgot to explain the implication of the observation.

Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC

Albatross at 16:12 PM on 3 March, 2012

Well done Keith!

This is yet another shameless example of Dick Lindzen and his fellow fake skeptics willfully (they do know better, or they can claim ignorance if they choose)distorting and cherry picking in order to confuse and mislead the public.

They could only create their illusion by choosing the very high end of the climate sensitivity range and the most pessimistic emssion scenario. Worse yet, now in 2012 they try and claim that the prediction was wrong when they obvioulsy used the most pessimistic scenario possible.

It is bemusing and uncompelling when certain vocal fake skeptics demosntrate their one-sided skepticism by nit picking and arguing strawmen, whilst giving Lindzen et al. free pass on their egregious errors.

Lastly, it never ceases to amaze me how fake skeptics somehow manage to get stuck in the past (McIntyre is still obsessing about a seminal paper published in 1998), Lindzen and his fellow fake skeptics are infatuated with the first IPCC assessment report from 1990 (that was 22 years ago folks!), and Michaels is obsessed with a Hansen et al. paper written back in 1988. So much for their claims about advancing the science ;)

Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment

Albatross at 10:46 AM on 23 February, 2012

Eric @43,

"I believe I answered that in #35 and raised my specific concerns with the critique of Meyer."

No you most certainly did not. I was very specific, I asked "Could you please let us know specifically which of his claims you agree with or support and which ones that you do not agree with or support and Meyer makes several statements in his opinion piece". Let me help.

1) Meyer says:
"We are discussing the hypothesis of “catastrophic man-made global warming theory.” "
Nice strawman and misrepresentation of the body of evidence. Or do you disagree?

2) Meyer also claims:
"On the opposite end of the scale, many plants grow faster with warmer air and more airborne CO2, and such growth could in turn reduce atmospheric carbon and slow expected warming."
Good luck defending that one.

3) Meyer claims:
"Rising temperatures may increase evaporation and therefore the amount of water vapor in the air, thus adding powerful greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and accelerating warming."
May increase evaporation and the amount of WV?! He is behind on the observational data and the Clausius-Claperyon equation.

4) Meyer also says:
"The IPCC assumed that strong positive feedbacks dominated, and thus arrived at numbers that implied that feedbacks added an additional 2-4 degrees to the 1 degree from CO2 directly."
They assumed nothing or do you disagree? If yes, please provide supporting evidence.

5) Meyer claims:
"Not only may the feedback number not be high, but it might be negative, as implied by some recent research, which would actually reduce the warming we would see from a doubling of CO2 to less than one degree Celsius. After all, most long-term stable natural systems (and that would certainly describe climate) are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks."
Are you a advocate of the notion of homeostasis Eric and do you believe that there is evidence of a net negative feedback in the system as he suggests? If yes, please provide supporting evidence.

6) Meyer claims:
"Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003."
That is demonstrably false, or do you disagree? If you do, please provide supporting evidence.

7) Meyer claims:
" There is no reason why warming should take a break, and we are starting to hear more frequently, even among catastrophic global warming supporters, discussion of “the missing heat.”
Again, demonstrably false or do you, unlike the climate scientists, believe that the warming should be monotonic? If you think so, please provide supporting evidence.

8) Meyer claims:
"They took computer models, which by their own admission left out a lot of the complexity in the climate, and ran them with and without manmade CO2 in the 20th century. Their conclusion: only man’s CO2 could have caused the measured warming."
Another demonstrably false statement and misrepresentation of the body of scientific understanding, or do you disagree? If you disagree, please provide supporting evidence.

9) Meyer claims:
"If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases."
More misinformation and oversimplification, see here. Or do you agree? If yes, please provide supporting evidence.

10) Meyer claims:
"Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions."
Really? Do you agree with that assertion? If yes, please provide supporting evidence.

11) Meyer claims:
"Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history"
This is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts. Or do you agree with his claims? If yes, please provide supporting evidence.

12) Meyer claims:
"What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2. "
It seems from your comments above that you agree with this misguided and uninformed statement. No?

IMHO, the premise of Meyer's argument is not based in reality and is certainly not a compelling case to delay or prevent taking action on reducing our GHG emissions. In short, he is a merchant of doubt. He (or anyone who supports his claims) is also betting against physics...and to do so is pure folly.

CO2 limits will make little difference

Trent1492 at 13:09 PM on 1 February, 2012

Came to this page via the Christy Crocks page. When I click on any link in the Climate Myths column for April 1,2011 I receive the following error message:

Media Player
You are not authorized to view this resource.

I have received the exact same message in regards source links in the Lindzen Illusions. I am using Windows 7 with Firefox as a browser.

Ice isn't melting

Trent1492 at 05:24 AM on 31 January, 2012

In your Lindzen Illusions that deals the Arctic Sea Ice with you quote Lindzen and give a source but when I click on the link to the Lindzen quote I receive the following message:

Media Player
You are not authorized to view this resource.

Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data

Eric (skeptic) at 02:04 AM on 21 January, 2012

Tom, thanks for the mockup. You have proven that it is possible to create an independent figure from K&H08 figure 3b with just a little work. I don't agree that it is perfectly sensible without knowing that it applies to the estimates in K&H08 fig 3a. Otherwise you are correct, it is now independent of 3a.

Here's my list of uses of 3a:
wide version:

/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

/lindzen-illusion-4-climate-sensitivity.html

/ppm451.html

/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html

/christy-crock-6-climate-sensitivity.html

/Monckton-Myth-4-Climate-Sensitivity.html

/spencer_ocean.html

/climate-sensitivity-skeptic-end-game.html

upright version:

/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

/working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

some offsite uses (incomplete search):

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/11/a-new-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/19/206503/climate-sensitivity-lukewarmers

I'll comment on one of those threads as you suggested.

Climate Solutions by dana1981

Colin at 08:44 AM on 16 January, 2012

Fair enough John, I stand corrected. But I think you've missed my point... This web site, and every other site I've seen is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data, bolstered by it's own interpretation, to convince the reader. Each side ridicules the other as being uninformed, biased, unqualified etc etc. This very web site has sunk to the adolescent level of name calling... "Baked Curry", "Christy Crocks", "Lindzen Illusions". However, my point is simply that nobody seems to want to discuss the cost of the cure. As an average citizen, with a vote, I think it is only reasonable that I learn the cost before I accept the prescription. I can't understand why that concept seems so difficult...

Updating the Climate Big Picture

dana1981 at 05:27 AM on 23 December, 2011

mace @1 - see has Earth warmed as much as expected? (short answer - yes it has).

The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 22 November, 2011

Just to further reiterate the point. The rebuttals in links like Lindzen Illusions, Spencer Slip-Ups, Christy Crocks are not to statements they have made in published literature but to misinformation they stated in public forums.

And since you are not impressed by Mann's tree ring data, perhaps you would like to discuss (on the correct thread) the published papers that have led you to this position. I would sincerely hope that since you respect science that your position is based on some published science and not blog commentary.

The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

skywatcher at 16:53 PM on 21 November, 2011

TIS: I see you're not actually willing to provide evidence to support your assertions, as requested by Daniel Bailey @23.

"I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from the ~~warmist~~ scientific point of view." There, fixed it for you. Funny you should resort to calling names in the same post as complaining about name-calling.

That you compare this site to WUWT in terms of content and treatment speaks volumes about your ability to think critically, or discern abuse from scientific criticism. Spencer, Christy and Lindzen have made a great many errors, slip-ups, crocks and presented a good number of illusions too. Some articles here call them on that. 'Constructive dialogue' can only start when these people stop misinforming the public about the science of climate change, using all sorts of tired myths.

Nobody has presented a scientific case as to why Mann is wrong, and his work has been repeatedly independently verified - do you condone the unjustified abuse heaped upon him at WUWT and elsewhere? Skeptics perpetually fail to understand the consequences of Mann being wrong: that this would mean climate sensitivity is even higher than previously thought! Oops.

By the way, the day that a climate skeptic procides a sound scientific case for any of "CO2 isn't the main driver of global warming", "Warming isn't having negative consequences for food production, severe weather, coastal communities etc", "the oceans are not acidifying or sea level rising", then I will break out the champagne, I'd love to be wrong. But I need a sound science case for it, not all the mutually incompatible and easily-debunked myths that seem to be the best the skeptics can come up with. Despite the fact that the big hydrocarbon producers could easily fund just about any scientific study they liked, from Antarctica to the Marianas Trench, with their loose change, not to mention their logistical capabilities, and thus scientifically demonstrate that their product is not polluting the atmosphere, they haven't managed to do so. Inconvenient?

The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?

The Inconvenient Skeptic at 16:21 PM on 21 November, 2011

I have taken great efforts to compliment Steve on a well put together series of articles that do a good job explaining the Eemian to the layperson.

Most of what I wrote in #12 was a technical response to the article with a final bit as to why I like the series of articles. It's honest approach to the science is appreciated. Please note that I was complimentary to Steve and the series of articles.

Most people are not responding to the technical points I brought up, but the tiny add-on that explains why I like the series of articles.

I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from the warmist point of view. As a concept I fully support that purpose. This series of articles is an exemplary example of that type of article.

However, having sections of the website named; Lindzen Illusions, Spencer Slip-Ups, Christy Rocks and so forth is name calling. I am not all that impressed by Spencer's cloud theory, but I am also not impressed with Mann's tree ring work.

Constructive dialog is not started by articles titled in such a manner. There is little difference between the treatment that SkS gives Spencer and Lindzen and the treatment that Mann and Hansen get at Watts.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

dana1981 at 11:28 AM on 30 October, 2011

dging, see the final figure in this post (although it uses 3°C sensitivity, not 3.4°C. As you can see, the result is that the projection is a bit low).

The BEST Kind of Skepticism

Albatross at 15:28 PM on 24 October, 2011

Dale,

The "skeptics" and those who are in denial about AGW need to catch up with the science, the fact that internal climate variability can modulate the long-term warming trend has long been known by climate scientists. As the "skeptics" like to point out concerning CO2 and global warming, correlation is not causation (yet the fingerprints of anthropogenic warming are everywhere). Also, the way the AMO is defined introduces its own issues that complicates matters.

Dale, I hope that you will join us in condemning Watts parroting misrepresentations concerning the correlation between the AMO and the global land temperatures the BEST papers on his web site.

Either way the claim that "skeptics" do not question that the planet is warming is demonstrably false. Arguments "challenging" the warming currently rank 5, 7 and 9 on the most used climate myths. Those myths exist because "skeptics" and those in denial insist on repeating them. Also a recent survey in the USA shows that over 50% of Republicans believe that the global temperatures are not increasing [H/T ThingsBreak].

[Source]

Another demonstrably false statement that "skeptics" are now making in their state of desperation is that the amount of warming caused by humans is unknown and that it is largely attributable to natural causes. First off, climate scientists are not attributing 100% of the observed warming to CO2, so "skeptics" claiming that are not being honest. Second, we have very good estimates that know that "a net anthropogenic warming of 0.49 to 1.12°C with a central estimate of 0.65°C warming of average global surface temperature." See here. Also see here and here and here.

In reality, the people making a big deal about BEST are the "skeptics". They are besides themselves with panic, and even turning on each other. Seeing them trying to spin this and at the same time attack the BEST group is rather bizarre; but I must admit it is rather entertaining. Why are "skeptics" making such an effort to discredit, undermine and dismiss the BEST results if they agree that the planet is warming and that the global temperature records are reliable? No, they are in deep, deep denial of course, and that includes Mr. Anthony Watts and his apologists such Pielke, McIntyre and Monckton and Delingpole. etc. Now Dale, are you a real skeptic or a fake one?

Comparing Global Temperature Predictions

KR at 04:54 AM on 18 October, 2011

Charlie A - I would suggest looking at the Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s, where dana1981 generated a prediction using Lindzen's numbers. Comments might be more appropriate there, with a link in this thread if desired.

I will note that (IMO) your comments seem out of line, in that you appear to be accusing dana1981 of fudging the data to make Lindzen look bad.

Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming

Albatross at 13:38 PM on 14 October, 2011

Dr. Pielke on another thread here at SkS:

"Policymakers, in my view, are being misled into believing that the climate should more-or-less monotonically warm when in reality both natural variability and the diversity of human climate forcings makes the issue of climate system heat content much more complex."

With all respect to Dr. Pielke, that is his opinion, but the facts show that he has it backwards. He is also making an unsubstantiated assertion with regards to policy makers being "mislead". Dr. Mojib Latif and other IPCC scientists are aware that the warming will not be monotonic and have in fact cautioned that it will not be, it is actually the "skeptics" who seem to think so.

I say that because it is in fact those who deny the theory of AGW and "skeptics" (even some "skeptic" scientists who know, or should know, better) who get excited every time there is a short-term slowdown or cooling (perceived or real). It is for that very reason that science sites like SkepticalScience (and OpenMind) have had to spend a lot of time refuting claims that global warming stopped in 1998 and 2002 etc. (the number of choices to cherry pick increases as the window is shortened). See here, here, here, and here. There are more, but I think you get the point. The scientific literature abounds with papers speaking to the variability of global temperatures and SSTs (some examples here and here).

Unfortunately, because the global temperature records are inherently noisy (because if internal climate variability, such as El Nino and La Nina), "skeptics" can continue playing this deceptive game (and it is a game for some) of cherry picking statistically insignificant short-term "cooling" trends all the while the statistically significant long-term trend is UP. To do so is in fact misleading policy makers and confusing the public.

Understanding climate denial

Albatross at 03:29 AM on 29 September, 2011

cRR_Kampen @51,

While a appreciate your enthusiasm on this particular subject, it seems that the thread is getting somewhat off topic by discussing the details of climate sensitivity. If you read my post above I think that you'll see that we are largely in agreement.

Dana wrote a post recently on the observed warming and how that compares with what has been observed, so perhaps that is a more appropriate venue to discuss this further, as this thread is primarily concerned with understanding denial. Thanks.

Monckton, the Anti-Nurse

Crispy at 13:01 PM on 27 September, 2011

I have heard it said that ridicule is a last resort when you have run out of arguments to put, but I think its use is broader than that, and employed by both sides of the war. 'Christy Crocks' and 'Lindzen Illusions' are whimsical headings, but arguably ridicule. And fair enough, I say. Albatross notes this is a 'PR game' for the deniers. But it is really a PR game for all of us - concerned laypeople, scientists; skeptics and industry drones alike. Hearts and minds have to be won to one side or the other, and we are all doing PR, like it or not.

It's a shame we can't have a bipartisan approach to this issue, but so be it. War it is.

As to ridicule, (neat segue coming up), Australian readers of SkS might like to check out 'Crownies' on ABC1 this Thursday 29/9, 8.30pm. Climate Change makes it into pop culture, with B-story status at least, with a denialist in court against a climate scientist. Regulars can play Climate Blog Bingo and tick off the skeptic memes. You may recognise some of the one line rebuttals :). And a few less than subtle references to key players.

The issue is skated over, as only TV can. But if you like a bit of ridicule in your war, this episode is fun. Thursday. 8.30.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Stephen Baines at 01:01 AM on 22 September, 2011

Critical mass

"My point is that the authors of this site seem to automatically accept that a pro-AGW scientist such as Dr Trenberth or Dr Hansen will get it right (even when they disagree with each other) and if one of the 'usual suspects' says something different then they generally must be wrong."

Whatever his past successes, Dr Lindzen's viewpoint on climate sensitivity is not widely accepted in the scientific literature because observations and modeling results do not bear it out. Predictions based on his viewpoint also fail spectacularly to represent past trends in temperature.

If you read the linked threads, you find that SkS is merely reporting the evidence for and against his positions. It does not presume he is wrong a priori because he is a "skeptic." It shows he is likley wrong because his positions put him at odds with the data and our understanding of physics (based on lots of data). The same can be said for many of the other "skeptic" positions. The evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that you are almost forced to argue that the evidence is wrong to hold an opposite opinion. I guess that's one reason one often hears AGW skeptics spout conspiracy theories about data manipulation.

As for intentions, I cannot explain why Lindzen refuses to back down on his positions, nor can most of the climate scientists I personally know (note that I am not one). As DM notes, it does on occassion happen that brilliant scientists head down the wrong track, for whatever reason, sometimes spectacularly so.

Past success does not guarantee future success. Though it does warrant a measure of personal respect, it does not excuse his ideas from critical inspection.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Stephen Baines at 13:09 PM on 20 September, 2011

Chemware,

I don't see Monckton Myths as ridicule in the least. That is a pretty exact description of what the man offers. Even the lettering actually coheres with how the man presents himself. If that is ridicule, it is self-ridicule.

Spencer slip-ups is pedestrian. The graphic is not provocative at all - referencing I guess his tendency to favor negative feedbacks. He might be upset if an overdeveloped sense of grandeur makes him sensitive to all questioning. But that would be his problem and not the problem of this site.

Lindzen's illusions fairly describes what the man does as well: cherry-pick, dissemble, distract and appeal to authority to cast doubt on perfectly good science and disguise his own intellectual isolation on climate change matters. However, he does not cast himself as a magician, so it is a little impertinent. That graphic basically puts a pointy hat on his head and a wand in his hand.

That said, the graphic is no different than that employed by Lessons from Predictions, which links to assessments by the SkS team. So it would seem the same level of levity is afforded to links of SkS products as it is to these personalized links. They too have pointy hats and wands. Welcome to the party!

The one I can really see an issue with is crock, but that is because of an association I and many others were not aware of.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

muoncounter at 11:47 AM on 20 September, 2011

Chemware#89: "do we want Skeptical Science to be a site of ridicule"

Really? You're the first to call it 'ridicule.' How can discussion of science flaws be considered ridicule? Just because some who have made those flaws don't like it?

Compare 'Lindzen Illusions' etc to some of the nonsense pulled from the anti-science sites, as in NYJ's #90. That's ridicule.

Chasing Pielke's Goodyear Blimp

Chemware at 11:26 AM on 20 September, 2011

There is an important word that has not been said yet in this article or its comments:

Ridicule.

That's what "Christy's Crocks", "Monckton Myths", "Lindzen Illusions", etc are really doing. These people richly deserve the ridicule, as the associated articles make clear. They also deserve it because because they support and encourage people who ridicule (and worse) climate science and scientists ... and nothing feels better than a bit of "eye for an eye". And that's what is upsetting Pielke, and maybe others as well.

But do we want Skeptical Science to be a site of ridicule, or an authoritative, dispassionate, science-based site ?

Let's take a step out of the muck.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

Rob Honeycutt at 07:08 AM on 18 September, 2011

Am I reading this correct, that Dr Pielke is only concerned about what he considers derogatory representations (regardless of the content of the actual posts) of specifically colleagues whom he has directly worked or interacted with?

So, Monckton's Myths and Lindzen's Illusions are okay? (Assuming he's not worked with Lindzen.) And therefore, also, all the derogatory representations made toward Trenberth, Mann, Phil Jones, and a long list of others, is also fine and dandy?

I'm trying to determine if he is only offended by what he considers derogatory representations of people whom he chooses to agree with or if it's truly limited to those whom he has worked with.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

pielkesr at 04:37 AM on 18 September, 2011

Regarding the moderator comment -

"Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] We are very happy for you to discuss the science with us here at SkS, however please do so on the appropriate thread. SkS is organised this way in order to keep the discussion focussed. As we are unable to comment on the article on your blog it seems reasonable to have an article here devoted to the issue of your accusation of ad-hominems, so on this thread, please restrict your comments to that topic and that topic only. If our reporting of the science is incorrect then I strongly and sincerely encourage you to join the discussion on the relevant threads, your contribution will be greatly valued."

You post a "rogues' gallery" on your website ["Christy Croks"; "Lindzen Illusions!"; "Monckton Myths"; and "Spencer Slipups" and are then surprised a number of my colleagues, as well as myself, consider this as degrogatory. I do not necessarily agree with all of their statements, but you are not going to broaden the appeal of your weblog unless you move away from this approach and just focus on the science. Such labeling of individuals is not constructive.

I raised the issue on my weblog that I view the SkS labeling as ad hominems because I have published with John Christy and have directly interacted with Roy Spencer. They do not deserve such labeling. If similar rouges' gallerys were made of any other colleague who I have recently published with and/or closely worked with, I would also post on my website alerting the community who reads my blog of such a derogatory presentation.

This is the last statement I will be making on this thread, since, in response to the SkS request from Dikran Marsupial, the discussion of science issues on this thread, that some of your commenters have made in response to my questions, is discouraged.

I will defer from further involvement at SkS until (if SkS chooses) there is a separate post on the specific science issues I asked about earlier in this thread and on my weblog.

Please alert me when you do if you are interested in a scientific discourse with me. I do appreciate, that you did not exclude any of my comments in this thread.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

KR at 01:31 AM on 18 September, 2011

Actually, "Joe Bob is an idiot" is an insult, not an ad hominem argument. Insults do not add to the discussion, and in fact generally detract, but are not part of the process of logical argument.

If you state "Joe Bob is an idiot, hence his statements about global warming are wrong", then you have committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. You have used an insult rather than evidence/logic related to the issue to attempt to dismiss an argument.

If on the other hand, you state "Joe Bob has been wrong on A, B, C, and D due to W, X, Y, and Z", where those are logical statements, and then state "Hence I consider Joe Bob an idiot", that is not an ad hominem argument. Rather, it is a judgement based upon past behavior.

That kind of judgement can be an influence in reviewing further work by Joe Bob, as in the Trust but verify statements made earlier. You do have to be wary of the Poisoning the Well fallacy - dismissing further arguments from a person you hold a negative opinion of without actually judging those arguments.

But judgement statements such as "Christy Crocks", "Spencer Slip-ups", and "Lindzen Illusions" are supportable by the long list of repeated errors, focus on inadequate models, quickly refuted papers, and public presentation of flawed conclusions by these people.

Just be careful not to use those labels to shortcut actual evaluation of their work!

---

I will further note that Dr. Pielkes initial accusations were that SkS was dismissing the UAH satellite data based upon ad hominem arguments. That is demonstrably false, and he has presented exactly zero evidence to support that statement.

Shall we move on now?

Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback

dana1981 at 01:51 AM on 4 August, 2011

Alexandre - I've never seen a prediction from Spencer (or Christy) that we could put to the test. If you can find one, I'd be more than happy to do a post on it. "Skeptics" tend not to put their money where their mouths are. They like to criticize others without making predictions themselves. We had to reconstruct a 'prediction' from Lindzen based on his previous comments (see Lindzen vs. Hansen) because even though he's researched the climate for 40 years, he's never made a concrete prediction either.

Badger - Braswell is a colleague of Spencer at UAH.

Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy

actually thoughtful at 12:19 PM on 4 July, 2011

Camburn in your post #32 you claim sensitivity is 1.0C - this is not within the currently accepted range and demonstrates you don't understand the physics. Will you kindly get of this thread (about the advantages of switching to clean energy NOW via a carbon tax) and get your confusion dealt with on the correct thread? It makes no sense for people to clog up EVERY single thread with the same tired, oft debunked claims.

Frankly, Lindzen's claim that "what we've seen so far" suggests sensitivity is no higher than 1°C for doubled CO2 could not be further from the truth. Why don't you go to that thread, post all your credible facts and published papers that justify 1C - and if your ideas survive there, THEN bring them into general discussion, otherwise, you are just polluting the threads with debunked claims.

You state some malarky about the status quo - YOU are the defender of BAU - which tanks the economy, and life as we know it. You are projecting to claim that that is somehow my position. It is a false claim. You would do better to not assume you understand (or question) my motives.

Camburn if you only HAD an alternative view! All you do, on thread after thread, is post the same debunked claims about sea level, about 1C sensitivity - things we KNOW are false. PLEASE start presenting an alternative to BAU.

As for your Chamber of Commerce level rah rah for North Dakota - Here is an article pointing out that EACH fracking well uses over one million gallons of water
North Dakota Fracking

Here we see North Dakota is not even in the top 10 for renewable energy production.

Camburn do you have anything credible to add to the discussion?

Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism

dana1981 at 05:09 AM on 3 July, 2011

CW - wrong, it makes Mother Nature a "warmist".

Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook

dana1981 at 06:06 AM on 30 June, 2011

poodle #39 - current observations are consistent with a sensitivity of 3°C for 2xCO2. If you use the IPCC range of transient climate sensitivity values, CO2 alone has caused 0.5 to 1.5°C warming so far, most likely 1°C - more than observed due to aerosols and other cooling effects offsetting some of that warming. That physics is how we know CO2 is causing the warming, aside from the anthropogenic warming 'fingerprints'.

Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity

dana1981 at 08:38 AM on 10 June, 2011

Rob H - see here for references to all three

KR - since you mentioned it, I'm surprised Lindzen didn't go for E&E!

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

dana1981 at 02:33 AM on 8 June, 2011

I've discussed implications of the instrumental record on climate sensitivity a few times, most recently in Lindzen Illusion #1. Bottom line, it's not far from 3°C, but the aerosol uncertainty complicates things so it's hard to narrow down.

Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?

dana1981 at 04:52 AM on 31 May, 2011

To be fair, you can argue for 0.5°C sensitivity if you also argue that much of the recent warming is due to internal variability (which is another denial argument, but one which Spencer/Christy/Lindzen use to justify their ridiculously low sensitivity denial - i.e. see Lindzen Illusion #7).

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

Albatross at 01:14 AM on 21 May, 2011

Stephen @124,

Thanks. BP is also very likely not comparing apples with apples-- he is conflating different data. And notice how the goal posts have shifted...the 'skeptics' are shown that heat uptake is occurring in the deep ocean waters and that doing so increasing the positive slope in OHC, the 'skeptics' do not acknowledge that but instead then ask how heat uptake can occur down to 2000 m or deeper. That is addressed, the 'skeptics' ignore that, and then try to demonstrate that that is not what is happening and that it is 'unphysical' using data from different datasets (yes Argo, but with different assumptions, post processing, corrections etc.) .

And note how they repeatedly refuse to answer this question:

"And again, please provide some context--what the does this all have to do with Lindzen's illusion about the warming arising from internal variability?"

It has been presented bold text, underlined text, so I know they have seen it.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

Albatross at 01:18 AM on 20 May, 2011

Ken @118,

This has been getting silly for some time Ken, mostly because of your recalcitrance and the shifting of goal posts. Additionally, you continue to misrepresent people (Chris in this case) when you say things like:

"So your case relies on nearly all the heat being in the 700-2000m depth range"

Re BP @117, you say:

"BP #117 has an interesting point. The heat travelling to the poles in the surface currents is given up to the polar air, before densifying enough to go down."

It may be an interesting point to you, but it is not novel, nor is it entirely correct. There are other processes at work too at high latitudes, including evaporation and brine exclusion, it is not called the thermo circulation, but the thermohaline circulation, although MOC is probably the best descriptor. It is odd that you and BP are arguing that the OHC can't be increasing below 700 m, but do not fully understand that there are mechanisms by which deep ocean heat uptake can occur.

If you feel that you know better, please write a paper instead of playing the omniscient peanut gallery. But you might wish to read the references provided to you @115. You might also wish to take not of the following from Trenberth and Caron (2001):
"Atmospheric transports adjusted for spurious subterranean transports over land areas are inferred and show that poleward ocean heat transports are dominant only between 0° and 17°N. At 35° latitude, at which the peak total poleward transport in each hemisphere occurs, the atmospheric transport accounts for 78% of the total in the Northern Hemisphere and 92% in the Southern Hemisphere. In general, a much greater portion of the required poleward transport is contributed by the atmosphere than the ocean, as compared with previous estimates."

You ignored the information provided to you @115 by Chris and @116 concerning how heat uptake can occur in the deep ocean. And I'll add another, by Garrett and St. Laurent (2002). Do you deny that there are mechanisms in place that lead to deep ocean mixing and heat uptake there? And as shown above BP is arguing a strawman regarding the polar regions, also one reference that Chris provided talks about deep mixing on account of tropical storms.

I am not going to engage you anymore if you continue with this charade. And I'll remind you yet again that you still continue to ignore this question:

"And again, please provide some context--what the does this all have to do with Lindzen's illusion about the warming arising from internal variability? "

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

Albatross at 01:11 AM on 19 May, 2011

Ken @112,

Stop misrepresenting me re Dyson....the way you quoted those phrases (first one yours, second one mine) makes it look like am am of the opinion that Dyson is "dishonest and disingenuous", which is not true. I was, of course, referring to a "skeptic" who was misrepresenting his stance on the theory of AGW, you. And you doing that latest trick just supports my claim.

The fact remains the slope of the line increases (compare to that for 0-700 m) when one includes OHC down to 2000 m. You asked, you got an answer, yet you will not accept it. That is not 'skepticism', that is ideology Ken. And Josh said "most", not "all"-- Trenberth's figure is consistent with that. Now please go and argue strawmen somewhere else.

And again, please provide some context--what the does this all have to do with Lindzen's illusion about the warming arising from internal variability?

Re your question to Chris: "So you tell me how the heat is getting from the surface down to 2000m and below that."

I am emailing a colleague (an oceanographer) to ask him about that today.

Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s

angusmac at 13:57 PM on 17 May, 2011

Dana, to summarise our discussuion, I enclose the timeline and narrative showing the reduction in the estimate for the 2019 temperature anomaly from Hansen's initial estimate of 1.57°C in 1988 to your estimate of 0.69°C in 2011.

Links: Hansen (1988a), Hansen (1988b), Hansen (2005), Hansen (2006), Schmidt (2007) & Dana (2011)

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

Albatross at 08:17 AM on 14 May, 2011

There is another comparison between models and observations, the models are doing just fine thanks....but this line of argument is all just a red herring anyway.

Solid blue and red lines are trends from GISS and HadCRU data, dashed lines are IPCC projections included in the TAR.

[Source]

This is the proper way to compare the models and projections. Looking at rates from ~1980-2010, and comparing those with rates of warming predicted for the various SRES scenarios beyond 2000 is not comparing apples to apples.

Anyhow, Dana has addressed Lindzen's claim in his post here, what is being presented here by so-called 'skeptics' are red herrings. This is a no win for Lindzen, but rather than accept that fact, loyal 'skeptics' have to do their best to obfuscate the truth.

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

Albatross at 06:30 AM on 14 May, 2011

Dana @55,

"I'm not really interested, honestly. He clearly didn't read the article, which contains all the necessary info to refute his arguments, so why waste the time?"

No worries, I understand. I was wanting to allow you to have the first rebuttal, being the author of the piece and all.

From what I have read with Hansen, the observed rate of warming in GISTEMP for 1980-2010 is comparable/in agreement with the values reported in the IPCC. I found this statement (wikipedia, sorry, I'm in a rush):

"A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios."

From Hansen et al. (2010):
"On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15°C–0.20°C per decade that began in the late 1970s."

And from RealClimate for 1984-2010:
"For the GISTEMP and HadCRUT3, the trends are 0.19+/-0.05 and 0.18+/-0.04ºC/dec (note that the GISTEMP met-station index has 0.23+/-0.06ºC/dec and has 2010 as a clear record high)."

And, point 1 @50 is not a score for Lindzen, as you know:

[Source]

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

Albatross at 04:25 AM on 14 May, 2011

ClimateWatcher,

"Lindzen's research has greatly advanced meteorology and the understanding of the atmosphere."

That may be true, but it certainly doesn't seem to apply to his foray into climate research. And it does not make him infallible as some 'skeptics' would believe-- just look at the findings from the "Lindzen Illusions series", and his thorough (and multiple) debunkings of some of his work in the scientific literature. His insistence on repeating debunked myths, some for over 20 years now, and thereby misleading policy makers (and you) is simply bad science.

Denial is a very strong trait in humans, and we are very apt about convincing/deluding ourselves that there is not a problem, even when we are already in the midst of experiencing that problem. Lindzen is free to do that, but I find it despicable that he uses (abuses?) his credentials and authority to delude, misinform and mislead others on such an important issue.

But I thought appealing to authority, as you seem to be doing, is something that 'skeptics' accuse those who understand AGW to be a legitimate concern of?

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

~Qt~ at 09:47 AM on 13 May, 2011

By the way, I love the Lindzen's Illusions button!!!

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

dana1981 at 01:37 AM on 13 May, 2011

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.

Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming

David Horton at 06:40 AM on 12 May, 2011

MIne was a rhetorical "puzzle". Needs to be some better measure. "100% of climate scientists not paid by big oil", "100% of climate scientists without libertarian ideological beliefs" "100% of scientists who have done research into climatology" and so on. The "97%" figure always suggests that there is a serious minority, some brave, Galileo-like souls struggling against the crushing weight of enforced consensus, of actual climate scientists who disagree with the reality that increasing ghgs are causing rising temperatures and that humans are responsible for increasing ghgs. Instead it seems to be just Lindzen and Christy deliberately maintaining an illusion that there is still some serious scientific debate on these fundamental matters. I just have a feeling that they, and many other deniers, and the Koch brothers, would be quite happy with this graphic being reproduced for the next 20 years.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

Ken Lambert at 22:59 PM on 11 May, 2011

Albatross #72

Where did Tamino get the OHC chart from? I went to the site and could find no reference.

It does not even compute with Fig 1 from the top of this thread.

dana1981 #74

"We'll present Lindzen's alternative to AGW in Lindzen Illusion #7, coming in a few days. I can't say it's based on real-world data though, as the post will show."

You must have beaten Lindzen to death by now - surely not another beat-up in #7.

I notice that you have not included Dr Pielke Snr in the firing line.

He seems well respected enough to correspond with leading ocean heat scientist Josh Willis and publish their email exchange on his website.

This from 13FEB11:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/update-of-preliminary-upper-ocean-heat-data-analysis-by-josh-willis-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9can-unpublished-update%e2%80%9d/

It seems that Willis **preliminary** analysis of the Upper Ocean Heat Content 2005-2010 is showing around 0.16W/sq.m globally. If we add Purkey & Johnson's number of about 0.1W/sq.m from the deep oceans the total is about 0.26W/sq.m globally.

This is a lot less than Hansen's 0.6W/sq.m and Dr Trenberth's putative global warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m.

Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases

dana1981 at 06:24 AM on 11 May, 2011

akbetts' link is a very interesting read. When asked why he thinks water vapor/clouds are a negative feedback (page 71), he brings up his favorite "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" argument (Lindzen Illusion #1). He's got this whole house of cards built on false claims which are contradicted by observational evidence. More on that in Lindzen Illusion #7 later this week.

It was also refreshing to read Gore's statements and questions. He actually had a solid understanding of climate science and desire to learn from the expert testimony. A stark contrast to today's congressional climate hearings, where politicians are just trying to score points, and Republicans just try to jam as many myths as possible into their alotted time.

Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases

dana1981 at 05:56 AM on 11 May, 2011

akbetts - interesting, thanks for the info. At least as late as 1996 Lindzen was still arguing that climate models exaggerated the water vapor feedback, as discussed in Lindzen Illusion #4.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

dana1981 at 03:43 AM on 11 May, 2011

KR -

"I would really love to see a true skeptic argument against GHG driven global warming - one based on real-world data, with some theory behind it."

We'll present Lindzen's alternative to AGW in Lindzen Illusion #7, coming in a few days. I can't say it's based on real-world data though, as the post will show.

Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases

dana1981 at 13:47 PM on 10 May, 2011

Agnostic - no, we haven't invited Lindzen to respond.

Camburn - we're not talking about climate sensitivity here. Try Lindzen Illusion #4.

Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases

Riduna at 10:04 AM on 10 May, 2011

Another very clear and concise explanation of why Lindzen is again wrong, though he does seem to have abandoned his beliefs of 25 years ago. The series of “Lindzen illusions” shows that he is wrong on a wide variety of issues and is rightly being held to account by SkS.

Has SkS invited the attention of Dr Linzen to the series of “Illusion” articles it is publishing and, more importantly, has it invited him to respond?

Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases

Bern at 09:26 AM on 10 May, 2011

arch stanton: yep, it makes for an easy reply. When a skeptic asserts "Water is the most important greenhouse gas", the simple reply is thus: "Not even the scientist who said that still thinks it's true."

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

funglestrumpet at 03:51 AM on 8 May, 2011

Just how many times must we simply sit back and allow Lindzen to give us his illusions, Monckton with myths and Christy his crocks? Isn’t it about time this community took the initiative? How about asking Lindzen and his compatriots for their response to these debunking posts and tell them you are going to make public the challenge and also the ensuing correspondence to a conclusion? If a point is reached where a stalemate is reached, the opportunity to join in is offered to those most competent to contribute.

This site has enough kudos to be able to contact anyone these ‘sceptics’ happen to use to publish their disinformation and show them how much they have been deceived.

It is fun to see their arguments being demolished, but like the warm feeling one gets from peeing ones pants while wearing a dark suit, who notices?

Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions

KR at 05:30 AM on 3 May, 2011

ClimateWatcher - I hope you will note that we haven't doubled CO2 yet, and that in addition there hasn't been enough time for a full response to the forcings we have induced.

3K seems about right. Your comments are rather hard to justify, though.

Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions

dana1981 at 04:59 AM on 3 May, 2011

CBD - I agree, Lindzen's position is likely based on a presumed low climate sensitivity. As I noted, we'll be addressing that Lindzen Illusion next. There really is no reason whatsoever to believe Lindzen is correct on low sensitivity, other than perhaps misguided wishful thinking.

Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions

dana1981 at 04:27 AM on 3 May, 2011

As it so happens, the next Lindzen Illusion (coming later this week) will be on climate sensitivity. For now let's just say the smart thing to do is to assume the IPCC is right.

Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions

Albatross at 03:22 AM on 3 May, 2011

ClimateWatcher @1,

Vacuous comments are not constructive.

You need to please read this post, and the overwhelming scientific literature that supports a sensitivity of near +3 C warming for doubling CO2, and then re-read the article.

Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s

dana1981 at 05:39 AM on 29 April, 2011

Albatross #12 - according to Lindzen, it was just as likely that the planet had cooled 0.2°C as warmed 0.4°C!

#13 - indeed, as another example Lindzen continues to make the demonstrably wrong "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" argument, at least since this 1989 talk. He seems to have no qualms continuing to peddle disproven claims for decades on end. Yet he's one of the most highly-revered and referenced scientists by "skeptics"

Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming

Argus at 07:03 AM on 27 April, 2011

Professor Lindzen is the main target on this site now, I understand. The title "Lindzen Illusion #1" forebodes that we will soon see a series of articles like the Monckton Myths numbers 1 thru 16. I have stayed completely out of this site for some months, but now that I returned I stumbled on this Lindzen theme. The purpose is to prove him wrong on point after point by quoting selected reports, as if it was possible to prove anything within climate science.

Climate science exists in the vast grey area somewhere in between physics and statistics. You can measure a lot of things daily or year by year, but it is still just weather when the time scale is 10, 20, or 30 years. You cannot test a climate theory in real life, on the real globe itself, unless you allow for a time scale that is too long for a human scientist. Computer models can be built to 'test' a theory, but a good model yields the desired results - those that were in fact built into the model.

I have great respect for Professor Lindzen; he is still an established atmospheric physicist and a famous professor of meteorology, and he has written hundreds of publications within the subject of climate and weather. In my view it is still possible that within another 25 or 50 years, those who live then will see that he was more right than wrong (and that the IPCC was wrong about the glaciers in 2035!).

On this site, however it is insinuated that he is a charlatan, a liar and a cheater. All this is of course writings by, and intended for, those that already have a certainty of belief in present-day climatology. They know they are right, and that Lindzen is completely wrong, but will any skeptic convinced by this post and these comments?

Reading through all the comments to this thread, I recognize about the same 50 guys that all have the same opinions and are full of implicit faith. They have read hundreds of "reports". They are full of indignation over the fact that some professor who has slightly different opinions (a millimeter here, a tenth of a degree there) is allowed to speak in public.

Then we have the 5 or so skeptics that are not so easily convinced. Without them there would be almost no discussion. They are told to go read more "reports" and come back later. If they write something considered off-topic, it is officially (-snipped-). That´s new, at least! I guess my comment will be seriously snipped.

Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming

dana1981 at 02:38 AM on 22 April, 2011

Albatross - no, this is the first I've seen the Lindzen '89 talk. We'll have to incorporate it into some future Lindzen Illusions.

A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity

Alexandre at 22:54 PM on 22 January, 2011

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?

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results