by Judith Curry
Lindzen and Choi have published a new paper entitled “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications.” This paper is pursuant to a previous paper on the same topic that was discussed by me on a thread at ClimateAudit. The paper is receiving substantial attention in the blogosphere owing to the unusual attention that the paper received by the editors at PNAS.
Lindzen and Choi Part I
Citation: Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/ 2009GL039628.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
I ran a thread on this paper over at ClimateAudit on this paper.
The two main findings of LC are that: the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate is much smaller than the conventional estimates (e.g. IPCC); and climate models substantially disagree with observations and produce a sensitivity that is far too high (and hence are producing falsely alarming projections).
I was quite critical of the paper, as were others.
Lindzen and Choi Part II
The new paper (dubbed here “Part II”) addresses the published criticisms.
Citation: On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications. Asian Pacific Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, in press. [link to complete manuscript]
The manuscript addresses many of the concerns raised by Part I, some of these concerns were addressed more satisfactorily than others. And a whole host of new issues are raised by the paper. The PNAS reviews of the paper can be found here.
PNAS review
The paper was originally submitted to PNAS. The PNAS review history on this paper is of interest, and it is documented ins some detail at masterresource.org. The PNAS has some unusual policies for submitting papers and reviewing them. While PNAS will consider directly submitted papers, nearly all of the successful papers are communicated by a member of the NAS. Each NAS member is allowed to communicate up to 4 papers per year. Members of the NAS have special privileges in this process, whose papers are referred to as contributed. From the PNAS guidelines for submitting papers:
Many of the same principles apply to papers contributed (Track III) for publication. Two or more appropriate experts, free of conflict of interest and not recent collaborators, should comment on both the original and the revised manuscript. All critiques should be returned on the standard PNAS review form.In rare instances, the Board expresses a concern about a Communicated or Contributed paper, most often because the referees are not considered appropriate or the member has not returned a significantly revised manuscript to the referees. If the original referees are not considered appropriate, however, the Board may suggest additional experts. Previously, these experts were anonymous to the communicating/contributing member. In response to concerns that some members have raised, the Board will henceforth suggest potential new referees who will be consulted only with the communicating/contributing member’s approval. In addition, to help the Board decide if a referee has the requisite expertise, PNAS staff will provide a link to that referee’s lab or office website. We ask for your help in providing this information during the submission process. In practice, very few Communicated and Contributed papers are rejected by the Board. Last year approximately 800 Communicated and 800 Contributed papers were submitted, of which only 32 Communicated and 15 Contributed papers were rejected.
Basically, if you are a member of the NAS, you can organize your own peer review by asking two people to review the paper. If the reviewers are deemed unsuitable, the editors will consult with other reviewers only if approved by the contributing author. PNAS deemed Lindzen’s reviewers to be unsuitable, and then recommended 5 potential reviewers which Lindzen found to be unsuitable. The PNAS send the paper out to 4 reviewers, with only two of them deemed to be marginally suitable by Lindzen.
So why the special treatment for Lindzen? In a letter to Lindzen from the editor:
On the other hand, it is precisely the high potential relevance of the issues addressed in the manuscript that requires the most objective and informed peer review conceivable. The article submitted by Lindzen and Choi is a response to strong (published) criticism of a previous paper by the authors. Not being a true specialist in the pertinent field, I cannot provide a solid judgment whether Lindzen and Choi have overcome that criticism. But it is good scientific practice to involve either some of those who have raised the counter-arguments (and may be convinced by an improved analysis) in the review or to solicit at least the assessment of leading experts that have no direct or indirect affiliation with the authors.
Ok, because this paper is skeptical of the consensus, it is deemed to require an unusually rigorous peer review. Hmmm. . .
JC’s comments
The editor is correct in that this is a potentially important paper. With regards to the scientific merit of the paper, the PNAS reviews were actually quite thorough and do not seem unfair to me; they raise many valid concerns. LC chose not to submit a revised version to PNAS and instead went with another journal.
With regards to how the PNAS editors treated Lindzen’s paper, I am of two minds about this.
First, I have been harshly critical of “pal review,” and the PNAS papers contributed by NAS members is the worst form of pal review. Ideally, every paper would be subjected to a rigorous review by 4 people including those who are likely to be critical. It should be incumbent on the editor (often with the advice of associate editors who are more knowledgeable of the subject matter) to sort out any unreasonable criticisms. And by the way, I also think that the reviews and editorial decisions should be made public on the web, such as in numerous online Discussion journals.
Second, PNAS violated its own guidelines in the treatment of the LC paper. Looks like potentially important papers by skeptics get “special treatment”, whereas unimportant and often dubious papers by consensus scientists slide right through. This treatment feeds into the narratives of McKitrick, Spencer, Christy, Douglass and Michaels about unfair treatment of skeptics by the journal editors. The establishment would often respond to such criticisms by saying that these are marginal papers by marginal scientists, and that more reputable and recognized scientists such as Lindzen have no trouble getting their papers published. Well, this PNAS episode certainly refutes that argument.
PNAS needs to decide whether it wants to be a vanity press for members of the NAS, or a rigorous peer reviewed journal. Either- or, with no special treatment for skeptics.
Fair peer review and editorial decisions on a highly controversial and politicized topic is a challenge. I have published one such paper (mixing science and politics) and have another one under review (uncertainty monster). In both cases, upon submission I wrote a letter to the editor explaining the controversy and why I was concerned about a fair review. I provided a list of individuals in one case and a category of individuals in the other case (anyone involved in the AR4 or AR5) that should not be reviewers. The editors cooperated in this. In the case of the mixing politics and science paper, the subject was too volatile even for reviewers judged to be “fair” and the editor had to step in and make the decision in the face of all this.
In the end, it is far more important that controversial papers be published than buried in the publication process. Far better for a flawed paper to be published than for a potentially game changing paper to be buried. LC’s work on this topic needs to be pursued, challenged, and understood.
Seems to me that people that bear animosity against Lindzen must be classified as being “affiliated” to him.
IOW just as “pal review”, “rival review” should not be taken seriously either.
“In the end, it is far more important that controversial papers be published than buried in the publication process.”
On that point, you are exactly right.
Specifically, climatology will not be taken seriously if scientists in that discipline all assume Earth’s heat source is constant while NASA makes headlines with reports about observations of solar disruptions over the entire solar globe.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-small-sun-watcher-proba-view-massive.html
Yesterday evening Space.com reported a “Major Result on the Sunspot Cycle to be Announced Tuesday” – June 14 at 1:00 pm EDT in New Mexico (Los Alamos National Laboratory?). Here is the story by Dr. Michael Wall:
http://www.space.com/11936-sun-weather-sunspot-cycle-announcement-preview.html
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
And this means what?
It means that no matter what the topic of the post, Oliver will post some barely coherent musings on the sun.
To be fair, Isaac Newton spent much of his time obsessing over alchemy.
Even great scientists can get side-tracked into dead-ends….I just wish Oliver would stop boring everyone to death with it here.
Normal service is now resumed.
The “Major Result on the Sunspot Cycle to be Announced Tuesday” – June 14 at 1:00 pm EDT – may be all hype or part of a thinly veiled warning to the AGW crowd that Los Alamos National Laboratory will release quantitative details on the Sun if LANL doesn’t get a bigger piece of the federal budget next year.
Who knows?
Idiocy
Idiocy?
Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory’s Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14): “The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus”
“This is highly unusual and unexpected”
“But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades”
“That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html
With kind regards,
Oliver
Yes, an extended solar minimum will have some effect on earth’s climate, but we had a record (in a couple of analyses) or near record (in a couple of others) year during a period of low solar activity. A prolonged period of low activity will slow down the effects of global warming, but it will not reverse them in any major way.
See here for a paper analyzing this effect.
See also here for another look at this…
So here’s this projection in the IPCC models? After all the modellers claim their models were spot on and eulogised them to biblical proportions. You can’t come with if’s and buts now, after 2 and a half decades. What else they’ve left out? Nobody knows till something else happens which was not foreseen or taken into account by the modellers and again they’ll come back saying ” if this had not happened “.
This just reinforces the fact that the modellers knew precious little of our system while modelling because the system is chaotic. It is not linear. It can never be modelled accurately. And if it can’t be modelled accurately, decisions affecting millions and costing billions can’t be taken based on the outputs of these models.
That’s why our hostess has also put up the topic of IPCC Attributions and Overconfidence for discussion.
“You can’t come with if’s and buts now, after 2 and a half decades.”
A religious group, such as the climate denial movement resembles, cannot easily revise their opinions, because it undermines the case for faith.
Science, on the other hand, is in a constant state of revision. Yes, climate science has an impressive record of successful prediction, but there is always room for improvement and revision.
The predictions of two-and-a half decades ago are still very close to the state-of-the-art in terms of realistic estimates of climate sensitivity and the rate of temperature warming.
If you want eternal truths that will never be revised, you are looking for them in the world place.
“World place” should be “wrong place.” Revisions are a fact of life!
I agree, Venter.
Short-term weather predictions are often based on currents of heat, air and water in the biosphere’s thermal insulation – the atmosphere and oceans.
But Earth’s long-term climate variations seem to be linked to cyclic changes in Earth’s heat source – the Sun. This has been confirmed independently by many researcher groups since Jose’s paper was first published in 1965 [P. D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J. 70 (1965) 193-200] .
Venter,
You do understand that solar forcing (TSI) is an input to climate models and that they do not incorporate solar physics (a completely different system).
Feulner and Rahmstorf is an example of one of the things that are done with climate models. Since we don’t have a second copy of the solar system, they allow us to ask “what if” questions. In this case the what if question led to an answer which was that globally the changes were small but that regional changes could be large. Modeling studies and empirical (paleo) evidence seem to be in agreement here.
You may not like this, but it represents what we know….
Your last line is the only correct one. The models represent only what you know and there are a lot of things you don’t know. World economies are proposed to be changed based upon those models confirming the output of the models as gospel. And the output is not gospel due to various factors, whatever they may be. So it is an abomination to trust these models as sacrosanct and take policy decisions based upon their projections. That’s the key objection of a lot of us. Play with models all you want, understand what they can do or not do, improve them, no problem. That’s an academic exercise. Keep model outputs out of policy decisions and stop telling the world to change, based on these model projections.
These models can’t get things right based on what the modellers know about the world or climate systems at present.
A prolonged period of low activity will slow down the effects of global warming, but it will not reverse them in any major way.
Maybe, maybe not – we’ll all find out soon enough. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on any of it. Remember the “accuracy” that was exhibited in the predictions for Cycle 24. Bupkis.
So then you place the same level of confidence in this prediction of the possibility of a prolonged solar minima?
In another place on this thread, I said that I predicted this over 2 years ago. I also said I don’t want it to happen – that warm is better than cold. BUT – that doesn’t mean I’m right. Nor does it mean their prediction is right. Their being wrong about one thing doesn’t make them automatically wrong on everything.
But if I HAD to put money on it -I’d go with my own prediction cause I know my own track record and it’s not 100%, it’s a lot better than 50/50.
Judith – I am sure I am not the only one thinking Oliver K Manuel should not be banned, just prevented from ever mentioning here anything whatsoever regarding the Sun. Enough already!
Nothing is too nutty for blog-science….apparently.
Right, Michael.
They even allow those here who believe that our heat source is the insulator that surrounds us – Earth’s atmosphere.
Hey, I’d love to see where someone actually argues that the atmosphere is the earth’s heat source.
You’ll have about as much chance of that as finding an iron sun
Deva Ju sentence, “PNAS needs to decide whether it wants to be a vanity press for members of the NAS, or a rigorous peer reviewed journal. Either- or, with no special treatment for skeptics.” Or you really want to emphasis this.
It looks to me that more critical review period is needed if a journal wants to maintain a high rating. That or open published papers to internet discussion at a forum linked in the paper. Climate Science is a growing and rapidly changing field. The dead tree journals need to keep up.
I thought much of the point of PNAS’s publication policy was to give somewhat radical ideas an airing – ideas that would not get into other journals because they challenged orthodox opinion with evidence that wasn’t bullet proof. That seems a worthy objective to me.
I recall that Raup and Septkoski published their claim that mass extinctions were periodic (every 26mya from memory) in PNAS. They did turn out to be wrong, but their ideas certainly had a stimulating effect on debate in paleontology.
All journals dont have the same peer review processes.
So Judith, do you think the new paper adequately addresses the problems in the previous one? Could you or a knowledgable reader summarize the problems with the first paper, how they were addressed in the second, and any new serious concerns in the second paper? With regard to “special treatment” that does seem to be a problem, unless the claim made by the paper is truly extraordinary. A number of years ago, a paper was published in Nature indicating that a substance could cause a biological response even when diluted to the point that there were no molecules of the substance remaining to contact the cells but that the solvent “remembered” their presence. This paper received unusual review, which I think was warranted, and was published. Following an uproar among researchers in this field, Nature sponsored an investigation which indicated the “effect” reported was an artifact and represented nothing more than natural variability in the parameter in question. I would think that if either side of the climate debate was to be subject to “special review” it would be the side claiming that enough of the climate system is understood to confidently assert that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the main driver of the climate system and that warming can be predicted reliably. These are extraordinary claims based on data (the reliability of which has been called into question) from a relatively brief period of time, during which warming has “paused” for more than 10 years. In most fields, remarkable claims not supportable by direct evidence or definitive theory but only by correlation would be subjected to unusually rigorous review. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this does not seem to be the case in climate science?
I will shortly start to study this new 2011 paper by Lindzen and Choi.
Before I start, at a glance I sadly notice that it seems to use the ‘Mickey Mouse’ back-of-an-envelope “forcings and feedbacks” formalism beloved of the IPCC, and so I think it will not be able to produce a really scientific result. The authors have not used a properly constructed mathematical model, built in canonical time series terms, with proper distinction between external driver variables and internal system state variables.Consequently they have inherited the inextricable confounding of cause and effect of the corrupt IPCC formalism. They have apparently but sadly inappropriately accepted the IPCC “forcings and feedbacks” formalism’s corruption of the Bode 1945 theory for amplifiers; the Bode 1945 theory referred to devices supplied with an arbitrarily controlled auxiliary power supply and with response defined for arbitrary independent input signals; neither applies to the IPCC formalism and so one cannot expect scientific answers from it. The IPCC formalism confuses between up one-time-jumped but otherwise time-invariant parameters on the one hand, and time-dependent signals on the other hand, and is hopelessly vitiated by this radical error of understanding and method. Perhaps the authors think that ‘everyone uses and thinks in terms of that formalism, so, in order to be in the debate, we also must present our case in terms of that formalism’. No excuse, I say.
It will be a struggle to make sense of the paper because it does not use a proper canonical mathematical formalism. The authors are very respected experts in meteorology and climate science and they should be able access to a proper mathematical model and I think their failure to do just that is reprehensible.
Now to start to read the paper carefully. I need hardly say of course that I have plenty of respect for the vast knowledge and understanding of the authors. Christopher Game
I wonder if LC had published before Trenbreth et al, PNAS would have required Trenbreth et al to include a response to LC’s paper before approving its publication!
Trenberth has a lot of expertise in the observational networks of all types. He is without a doubt an appropriate reviewer.
Lindzen and Choi 2011 write: “It is generally accepted that in the absence of feedback, a doubling of CO2 will cause a forcing of ΔQ ≈ 3.7 W m^-2 and will increase the temperature by ΔT0 ≈ 1.1 K.”
I say ‘generally accepted by parrots of the IPCC’. But by a scientist recognizable as nonsense.
To fix an increase in temperature such as ΔT0 ≈ 1.1 K, one needs a means of converting the step input from a power such as ΔQ ≈ 3.7 W m^-2 to a temperature. This means either arbitrarily fixing a time and heat capacity for which the new input shall work, or arbitrarily choosing some on-going steady response from the system that receives the power; even IPCC supporters accept that the ‘Planck response’ is a “feedback” in their terms. Either way, the “no-feedback” response is an exercise in arbitrary hand-waving, and does not have a place in the real calculation of the actual sensitivity. There is no possibility of a true no-feedback response without a one-sided or active-transfer circuit element, endowed with an arbitrarily controllable auxiliary power supply, such as is required by the Bode 1945 theory but of which the earth’s energy transport process is devoid. The choice of the ‘Planck response’ as the reference “feedback” is merely an arbitrary word-game and has no actual physical meaning. Actually, everyone knows that, but they don’t dwell on it, because it isn’t rhetorically convenient to do so.
It is just a hand-wave that seeks to justify the use of the “forcings and feedbacks” model and its IPCC beloved story of “amplification by positive feedback by water vapour radiation absorption effects”. Yes, when the temperature goes up, there will be a greater column amount of water vapour and this will mean a greater year-round global average Planck-weitghted greenhouse-gas optical thickness of the earth’s atmosphere. But to express this dynamically, a proper and canonical mathematical model is needed, not a back-of-an-envelope formalism like that of the IPCC. Scientific method is not used just to fox students and occupy professors, but because it has been found to be the reliable way to find out the facts of nature. Christopher Game
“I say ‘generally accepted by parrots of the IPCC’. But by a scientist recognizable as nonsense.”
Since the vast majority of scientists do not consider that statement false, we should find a more descriptive label for those who believe as you do, to avoid confusion. “Scientologist” unfortunately is taken. Come to think of it, though, scornful rejection of facts of basic atmospheric physics seems like just the sort of thing they’d be into. Perhaps you meant to say that Scientologists think it is nonsense?
How about scientism?
Maybe blogscientism.
Judith –
This paper is only one step in approximately the right direction. As Lindzen himself says –
“If one reads [our new] paper, one sees that it is hardly likely to represent the last word on the matter. One is working with data that is far from what one might wish for. Moreover, the complexity of the situation tends to defeat simple analyses.
This is more similar to the Galileo trial than some advocates will likely be willing to admit, the difference being that Lindzen realizes that his work is incomplete while there is some doubt that Galileo had that insight.
Lindzen and Choi 2011 write: “Q consists in three components: (i) Q1 = external radiative forcing (e.g., from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission.), (ii) Q2 = internal non-radiative forcing (from heat transfer from the ocean, for example), and (iii) Q3 = internal radiative forcing (e.g., 279 from water vapor or clouds.).”
This seems to intend to make it seem that Q1 is really an external driver, when of course it isn’t. The radiative effect of added CO2 is determined by the internal system state variables. It is the intention of the IPCC formalism to lure readers into making the mistake that Lindzen and Choi seem to intend here, that it should be seen as an “external” effect. Shame. Christopher Game
What everyone seems to forget is that the IPCC uses a CO2 forcing parameter of the form 5.35ln(2) =3.71watts/m^2 for a doubling of CO2.
3.71watts/m^2 will result from a doubling from 1ppmv to 2ppmv 10ppmv to 20ppmv 100ppmv to 200ppmv or from 300 to 600ppmv as Hansen demonstrated in his 1981 paper or from 390ppmv to 780ppmv if today’s value is used.
With this input climate models will always produce increased downward forcing from increased CO2 concentration.
There are two sides to the energy balance equation but the Climate Change issue is based entirely on the “outgoing energy” side of the equation with no attention paid to the “incoming energy” side of the equation.
The Lindzen and Choi paper simply demonstrates that the OLR is increasing but all models predict a decrease in OLR because of this CO2 forcing parameter, so there is nothing in this paper that would not pass the most rigorous peer review because everything demonstrated in the paper is perfectly referenced.
The same cannot be said of the 1981 paper by Hansen et al published in SCIENCE, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511 that started this whole mess. Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
Hansen states “Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.” But because the CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical it has only a single vibrational mode centred on 14.77microns and ranging from 13microns to 17.5microns that occurs within the spectrum radiated by the Earth. 7 to 14 is very different from 13 to 17.5 yet the peer review failed to pick up this blatant error. The peer review also allowed the insertion of an undocumented CO2 forcing parameter into the climate models. Model number 4 outputs 2.78°C for a doubling of CO2 and it just so happens that 5.35ln(2) = 3.71 and 3.71 times 0.75°C is exactly 2.78°C!
The IPCC literature states that forcing is related to global temperature at a rate of 0.75°C for Each watt/m^2.
The 2007 IPCC report includes the number 3.71watts/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 so this faulty parameter missed by the 1981 peer review by SCIENCE is still driving the climate models today.
If we want to criticize peer review it is not Lindzen and Choi but Hansen et al in 1981 and again in 1988 that should be criticized. While we are at it we should look at the peer review that allowed the MBH98 and MBH99 papers that fraudulently created the now defunct hockey stick which was published in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report.
The bottom line is that the CO2 forcing parameter inputs precisely 0.782watts/m^2 of reduction in OLR from the increase in CO2 from 337ppmv in 1979 to 390ppmv today but the satellite measurement of OLR since 1979 shows over 2watts/m^2 increase in OLR.
Simply put this means that there is no measurable enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 and global temperature is controlled by changes to incoming energy with changes to outgoing energy having no identifiable effect.
I don’t believe it is correct to say that the logarithmic relationship between climate forcing parameters , temperature rise and CO2 concentrations extends as low as 1ppmv to 2ppmv. If so, why not 0.1ppmv/0.2ppmv? You can halve CO2 concentrations for ever and ened up with a minus infinity for global temperature which is obviously an absurd result.
Why not 0.03%/0.06%?
My point exactly. The CO2 forcing parameter was contrived in 1981 producing 2.78°C of projected warming from a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppmv according to the model number 4 output in the Hansen et al 1981 Paper. 5.35ln(2)=3.71 and 3.71 x 0.75°C = 2.78°C so we know that this was used back in 1981.
The section on climate modeling in the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report identifies the forcing of 3.71W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 as being within the 5 to 95 percentile of the climate models (90% certainty claim that global warming is caused by humans Bali Declaration) and this matches the stated ÄF = 5.35 ln(2) = 3.708W/m^2 of the earlier IPCC literature.
This forcing parameter is used for two different doublings of CO2 without any claims to the limit of its application so it is fair to show the absurdity of minus infinity that can result from this completely fabricated CO2 forcing parameter.
The entire climate change issue is driven by this single factor yet no one has challenged its verification.
The IPCC does not use a forcing parameter of the form 5.35ln(2) =3.71watts/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. The climate models used in the IPCC assessments use as inputs the time varying concentration of CO2 (or specified concentrations for equilibrium runs), which are then used as inputs into sophisticated radiative transfer models (see http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/)
Thanks Judith. I kinda knew that – believed it would be more accurate, given my lack of familiarity with the codebases concerned. It’s very important to know that the argument isn’t completely circular. Such models are definitely telling us something, just like a spell in Second Life can teach one something – we just can’t be sure it has any relevance to the planet we actually inhabit.
It is rather curious that the 1981 paper by Hansen produced exactly 2.78°C for a doubling of CO2 when one of the comments in the link you provided states “One of the objects of the famous ‘Myhre et al 1998′ study which gives the ’5.35*ln(C/Co)’ radiative forcing equation for CO2, is to compare LBL results from previous Narrow-band models and broad band models, which have different treatments of solar absorption or the vertical structure of the gas.”
5.35ln(2)=3.71 and 3.71 x 0.75°C is exactly equal to the 2.78°C produced by Hansen et al 1981 in Model input number 4.
Two results 17 years apart by people connected with the same modelling concept is more than coincidence!
The callenge is to find some documentation on how this 5.35 number was determined and on what physical basis since the addition of CO2 is an insulating effect which has factors of watts/m^2 and the temperature difference either side of the insulator; but CO2 forcing only has a factor of watts/m^2. CO2 is also limited in its ability to insulate by the amount of energy that it can access and since over 80% of the available energy in the 14.77micron band of the Earth’s radiative spectrum has already been accessed the remaining 20% only allows CO2 an additional 20% of the 3.3°C greenhouse effect already attributable to the existing levels of CO2 (over 90% of the Earth’s 33°C greenhouse effect is attributable to clouds and water vapour leaving only 10% or 3.3°C possibly attributable to the current atmospheric CO2 content.
The relationship you cite is not explicitly used in climate models. That said, it can be derived from the output of radiative transfer models.
Judy,
It is not physically possible to derive this relationship because CO2 is an addition to a passive insulating effect providing no energy and this is a term of energy flux. It is based on the assumption that there is a physical relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in global temperature. The IPCC states that it is based on an observed 100ppmv increase in CO2 causing the observed 0.6°C of temperature change over the past 100 years. Since the Little Ice Age the world has warmed by about 0.5°C/century, so even if this was a valid parameter it is overstated by a factor of six because 0.5°C of the observed 0.6°C is strictly natural warming as recovery from the Little Ice Age. Did you ever wonder why anyone would find it necessary to remove the Little Ice Age from the global temperature record and then publish this new Hockey Stick proxy half a dozen times in the 2001 IPCC report when the 1990 IPCC first report showed and identified by name both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? This was apparently done for the sole purpose of hiding the fatal flaw of the climate models and creating an appropriately alarmist graph to convince world governments to ratify Kyoto by the 2002 deadline.
By the time the 2007 report was published the Hockey Stick was ignored and both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were returned to the global temperature record. This leaves a problem for the climate models since the 5.35 constant for this forcing parameter based on the full 0.6°C should be reduced to 0.8917 to account for the return of the Little Ice Age!
The result can be determined by fitting a regression line through the simulation results from radiative transfer models with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature. the use of this expression is mainly as an hueristic in the context of simple back of the envelope arguments. The issue of this CO2-radiative flux relationship is completely separate from the Hockey Stick, etc.; neither argument depends on the other. The argument for a large increase in surface temperature in response to CO2 is associated with positive feedbacks (particularly the water vapor feedback) and is not directly related to the expression you cite.
Judy,
The only back of envelope calculation that is relevant is that the world population is 6.89billion and 6.5% of the world’s grain is being used as feedstock for ethanol and 8% of the world’s food oil is being used to produce biodiesel in accordance with the dictates of the Kyoto Protocol which is entirely based on the climate models that you are attempting to justify with arguments such as “The result can be determined by fitting a regression line through the simulation results from radiative transfer models with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature. the use of this expression is mainly as an hueristic in the context of simple back of the envelope arguments.” Which would be more fitting for a lawyer defending a guilty client than a scientist advancing knowledge. My back of envelope calculation finds 480 million people facing starvation because of this fraudulent CO2 forcing parameter which you are trying to argue as being valid.
Let’s keep this in the scientific arena and stick to the actual physical data. The global temperature varies by about 4°C over the course of a year due to the seasonal influence from the significantly larger northern hemisphere landmass ranging between 285 Kelvin and 289 Kelvin.
The observed OLR averages around 232watts/m^2 but ranges between 227 and 237watts/m^2 in direct response to the seasonal variation of the Earth’s temperature. 227/285^4 equals 0.000000034 and 237/289^4 also equals 0.000000034 indicating that the OLR is very closely matching the forth power relationship of black body radiation with absolute temperature.
According to the IPCC the relationship to temperature for focing is 0.75°C + 0.25°C for each watt per m^2 of forcing.
The observed forcing as measured by the OLR is 10watts/m^2 which means that the temperature variation from this change in OLR shouls be 7.5°C but the measurements only show 4°C so the relationship between forcing and global temperature is wrong.
Since this is used in relating climate models to projected global temperature changes the climate projections are all 7.5/4 too large so the 2.78°C projected for a doubling of CO2 in the 1981 Hansen et al paper should only have been 1.48°C.
Today our CO2 concentration is 390ppmv and it is currenly increasing at a near perfect linear rate of 2ppmv per year. At this rate by year 2100 the concentration will be 568ppmv and 5.35ln(568/390) = 2.01watts/m^2.
At 4/7.5 degrees C for Each watt/m^2 this equates an increase in global temperature of just 1.072°C by year 2100 using the forcing parameter that you are defending.
The latest agreement is that further action must be taken once the world is 2°C above the preindustrial level but so far we are only 0.8°C above this level with the world currently cooling so even according to the IPCC climate models properly adjusted to real conversion of forcing to temperature we will not even reach this 2°C level by year 2100 in spite of our increasing global CO2 emissions.
480 million starving people are the reason why defending fraudulent CO2 forcing parameters in this scientific blog is immoral.
replying to Dr Curry’s post of Jun 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm.
Dr Curry writes: “the use of this expression is mainly as an heuristic in the context of simple back of the envelope arguments.” I agree that this is so.
Dr Curry writes: “The argument for a large increase in surface temperature in response to CO2 is associated with positive feedbacks (particularly the water vapor feedback) and is not directly related to the expression you cite.” This is so, but is stated in terms that I that I think are supportive of an abuse of language. The heuristic back-of-an-envelope IPCC “forcings and feedbacks” formalism refers usually to a static model with which the term “feedback”, when referred to a citation of Bode 1945 (e.g. Bony et al. 2006), is incoherent. Static models cannot have feedback. By contrast, the Bode theory is dynamic and has feedback assigned by arbitrary choices made by the investigator in the context of the signal processing function of the device under investigation. Such arbitrary choices are not appropriate for a climate model, and make no sense for a static model. But the language is a masterstroke of propaganda; so deplorably effective that it has Lindzen trying to use it and Norm Kalmanovitch arguing about its finer points, while in reality it is just irredeemable nonsense.
If the IPCC people had something better I would expect them to tell us about it. It says a lot about the level of understanding of this problem that they IPCC people cannot offer anything better and continue to use this abuse of language. The dynamical structure of the AOGCMs is hardly more comprehensible than the raw climate data records. They lack a well-structured simplified model to tell how the AOGCMs work. Lacking this, they corruptly use the “forcings and feedbacks” formalism.
It is legitimate to speak of feedback in a loose sense for the AOGCMs, and legitimate to point out that they use the observed fact of approximate constancy of relative humidity in the presence of temperature change, and presumably correlation of water vapour column amount (and consequently Planck-weighted greehouse-gas optical thickness) with temperature. The water vapour effect takes place more slowly than the abrupt onset of radiative accumulation of energy, but on the same time scale as the increase of land-sea skin temperature caused by the accumulating energy. It is captiously arbitrary and even histrionic to call the radiative effect ‘non-feedback’ and the water vapour effect ‘feedback’. In a precise statement of the dynamics of a suitable simplified model, there is no place for the word “feedback” as a precise technical term; as a precise technical term, the word does not occur in textbooks of dynamical systems theory, which is the relevant theory to use here. Amplification has a definite meaning for electronic devices that use negative feedback with large loopgain, properly defined, such as those described by Bode 1945. But their use of the term “amplification by positive feedback” shows that the IPCC people are keen propagandists more than carefully spoken scientists. Christopher Game
I believe that the heuristic log relationship comes from a budyko paper dating back to the ’60s which is in English rather than metric units. There is somewhat of a log relationship that comes from the radiative transfer theory. Suffice to say that the result is roughly that a doubling (or halving) of co2 concentrations will result in a linear change in W/m^2 absorption that is in the few Watts/m^2 magnitude, somewhere around 3.7w/m^2 for a doubling or halving of today’s value and dropping down to around 2 w/m^2 for a doubling or halving after about 10 halvings from current value.
Simple observation of averages indicates that the sensitivity is around 0.2 deg C rise per W/m^2 of increased absorption which pushes the 1.1 deg C/doubling down to under 0.8 deg C rise per doubling.
The highly abused attempts at positive feedback also have some serious problems, mostly due to an overestimation of h2o vapor effects. It’s generally accepted that on average the water vapor relative humidity will stay about the same on average but what affects the absorption is total h2o content or absolute humidity. That is limited to around a 30% increase for a 5 deg C rise or a 13% increase for a 2 deg C rise. Like CO2, the h2o vapor has almost a log relationship to the the absorbed power so a doubling causes an increment which is between two and three times the incremental absorption for CO2. A 30% increase in h2o vapor due to a 5 deg C rise assuming constant RH amounts to less than the 3.7 W/m^2 ascribed to a co2 doubling, bringing up the total to around 6.8 W/m^2. What is needed to achieve a 5 deg C rise at 0.22 deg C per W/m^2 is almost 23 W/m^2 increase, of which we are missing almost 75% of the needed ‘forcing’.
A more recent response seems to be a few percent decrease in cloud cover will occur with a few degrees warming. This goes back to Lacis and Hansen and efforts at using a 1-d model to facilitate their gcm. It also appears to be based on an assumption made by these two (and coauthors) rather than by actual observation or even by modeling. If true, this could cause the amount of warming claimed by the CAGW crowd. However, it is totally unproven and without physical mechanism theoretically. It also flies in the face of common sense conceptual physics.
Responding to the post of cba of June 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm.
I am hoping for a reply to my response, so I am posting the body of it below as a straight response to the main thread. Christopher Game
Christopher Game 6/12/11, Lindzen & Choi
You wrote, In a precise statement of the dynamics of a suitable simplified model, there is no place for the word “feedback” as a precise technical term; as a precise technical term, the word does not occur in textbooks of dynamical systems theory, which is the relevant theory to use here.
To the contrary, try Haddad, W.M. & VS Chellaboina, Nonlinear dynamical systems and control: a Lyapunov-based approach, Princeton, 2008. Chapter 6, Stability and Optimality of Feedback Dynamical Systems, begins,
In this chapter, we … develop stability and optimality results for feedback dynamical systems. Specifically, general stability criteria are given for Lyapunov, asymptotic, and exponential stability of feedback dynamical systems. … In particular, constructive sufficient conditions for feedback stabilization are derived that provide a shaped energy function for the closed-loop system… . … Finally, we close the chapter by introducing the notions of feedback linearization, zero dynamics, and minimum-phase systems. Bold added.
The authors define feedback repeatedly by example and in numerous problems within system equations, and by system block diagrams. One of these block diagrams is functionally the same as Lindzen & Choi, Part II, Figure 1b, used similarly to define feedback.
Dynamical systems theory has no relevance to IPCC’s model of climate, which lacks sufficient flow variables for even the existence of feedback as defined in systems science. In the subject paper, Lindzen and Choi modeled climate as a linear control system so that they could attribute the low empirical climate sensitivity to feedback. Their model is a major departure from the GCMs, which is sufficient to account for the rejections by conforming climate journals. Dynamical systems theory is still light years away from L&C’s elementary linear model.
Lindzen and Choi, Part II, agreed with Dessler, A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, 12/10/10, on the empirical evidence that climate sensitivity was much lower than IPCC predicted, but disagreed on the attribution of that error to feedback. Dessler concluded that IPCC was correct in claiming that cloud feedback was positive, but to do so he had to invent a fourth definition of feedback (cloud feedback is conventionally defined as the change in ΔR_cloud per unit of change in ΔT_s), skipping IPCC’s three definitions, one explicit but unused, and two implicit. Lindzen and Choi reached back to systems science theory for a definition, but then bungled the regression analysis to estimate the form of the feedback function. (L&C performed linear regression instead of high order regression, and did so on numerically differentiated instead of detrended, raw flux and SST measurements.) So while Lindzen & Choi and Dessler agree that IPCC’s climate sensitivity was far too large, none of them could get the feedback right.
As IPCC frankly admits, its models don’t have clouds right, and its overly-parameterized models fail to agree with predicted climate sensitivity on the long-recognized, simplest theoretical grounds. AR4, ¶1.5.2 Model Clouds and Climate Sensitivity, p. 114. IPCC’s self-invalidated models should never have been used for public policy. The GCMs are not shovel ready, in the current sense of that phrase.
Christopher Game 6/12/11, Lindzen & Choi
P.S.: Lindzen and Choi, Part II, was often critical of Dessler, A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, 12/10/10. My observation that L&C agreed with Dressler was based on their note: However, it should be emphasized that even Dessler’s treatment of the data leads to negative feedback when lags are considered. Further for their own results, L&C found that [t]he maximum R [“the correlation”] occurs at small (zero or a month) lag.
curryja, 6/11/11, 7:10 am, Lindzen and Choi
Norm Kalmanovitch 6/10/11 8:24 pm was correct. IPCC does use the forcing, F, of 3.71 W/m^2 in its models, just in a different manner than you presumed.
IPCC uses F = 3.71 W/m^2 to tune its AOGCMs. AR4, ¶8.8.2, p. 644. IPCC uses it again in a simple climate model (MAGICC) to approximately reproduce results from the AOGCM multi-model dataset at PCMDI [Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison]. AR4, Ch. 8 Supplemental Material, Table S8.1, p. SM.8-73. That the value used to tune the AOGCMs, must be used again in the simple model to approximate those models is not terribly surprising. Models using this tuning technique can produce something that looks like 3.71 W/m^2 from any forcing, or even more easily, from no forcing at all.
GCMs tuned to 3.71 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 are biased. Runs from such models are not independent trials that might yield statistics for climate. If 3.71 W/m^2 doesn’t underlie the output of the GCMs and their radiative transfer (RT) subroutines, recheck the calculation. The average F in the 19 AOGCMs in Table S8.1 is 3.642 W/m^2 with a standard deviation of 0.27 W/m^2. The error in the average is -0.068, equal to -0.25 σ, about a 20% chance of being that small. It would be equivalent to 19 independent measurements with an average error of -1.1 σ each.
IPCC attributes the number 3.71 W/m^2 to Myhre et al. (1988). Id. Myhre et al. report the formula is a best fit to RT results using both NBM (narrow band models) and BBM (broad band models), but not LBL (line-by-line models), and as used in IPCC [1990], the FAR. Myhre, et al., Table 3, p. 2718. IPCC confirms that a newer value for the parameter, α for the TAR was 5.35. TAR, Table 6.2, p. 358. The FAR used 6.3. Table 2.2, p. 52.
Kalmanovitch referenced Hansen, et al. (1981) as the paper that started the whole mess. Not by a century. For the CO2 concentration from 1880, Hansen relied on a 1977 book, Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics, edited by a committee chaired by Roger Revelle and published by NAS in 1977. The authors of Chapter 4, Impact of Industrial Gases on Climate, were Revelle’s protégé, Charles Keeling and Robert Bacastow. Keeling’s analysis of CO2 relied on the Revelle factor, reverencing Revelle & Suess, 1957. ([H]uman beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment.) That factor was an attempt by Revelle to demonstrate that the bulge in CO2 at MLO was anthropogenic. By fiat the buffer sets the ratio of ACO2 to total CO2 atmosphere in proportion to the ratio of ACO2(aq) to total dissolved CO2 in the ocean. (IPCC later reformulated the denominator of that buffer factor.) By using the Revelle buffer in 1977, Keeling assumed that ACO2 accumulates in the atmosphere while natural CO2 does not. The assumption is the backbone for the AGW model, necessary (though not sufficient) to show global warming comes from ACO2, and it dates explicitly to Revelle & Suess in 1957.
Revelle & Suess referenced the work of Callendar (1938, 1940, 1949), Chamberlin (1899), and Arrhenius (1903). R&S originated the buffer factor, but were unable to set reasonable values for it to account for observations. Revelle was to be chairman of the upcoming International Geophysical Year, so this joint paper with Suess was a pitch to tap the IGY funds for this unfinished work.
Subsequently Hansen, et al. (1981), with Andy Lacis, formulated the problem as one of determining a sensitivity of the climate model to a doubling of CO2 between 300 and 600 ppm in terms of either ΔT in ºC or a forcing, F in W/m^2. Later IPCC renamed this the climate sensitivity, short for equilibrium climate sensitivity or effective climate sensitivity, but not restricted to 300 to 600 ppm, or any other domain of concentration. The notion that a constant sensitivity exists in any region is the same as assuming that the relationship between radiative forcing and CO2 concentration is logarithmic. The solution to y(kx) = constant + y(x) is uniquely the logarithm. See my post, 12/6/10, 6:37 pm, Andy’s response, 12/8/10, 11:49 am, and my rebuttal 12/8/10, 1:43 pm, Confidence in radiative transfer models thread.
While the relationship may be approximately logarithmic in intervals (about half of second order approximations, those convex down, are), it cannot be globally logarithmic. The Beer-Lambert Law informs us that the relationship of absorption to concentration saturates, but the logarithm never saturates. Nevertheless, the results of radiative transfer produce a logarithmic relationship or worse (piecewise logarithmic and convex up!) over the full range of the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere, from 0 to 100%.
The reason RT produces the logarithm is that the CO2 absorption spectrum employed today has no voids. This results from filling the continuum between CO2 absorption lines with skirts sufficient to produce the logarithm. These skirts have never been measured, much less validated.
Regardless, IPCC works from the assumption of the logarithmic relationship, with its unrestricted climate sensitivity, and as if it had been validated. The assumption could prove to be a reasonable approximation over a region of interest, but that has yet to be established. The problem for the GCMs is not simply that saturation is inevitable, but that no one knows how saturated the present-day climate is with CO2 approaching 400 ppm.
The issue is not getting CO2 radiation forcing right, but unbiased climate modeling. The fact that models may reproduce the resultant 3.71 W/m^2 sensitivity is not validation of anything, but rather is the expected result from tuning models to produce that result at the outset. It is a bootstrap all round.
You misunderstand section 8.8.2 and how this number is used. Coupled general circulation models (the big computer models such as GISS E and NCAR) do not use this number explictly at all, rather they calculate the downwelling IR flux at each time step and each grid cell as a function of cloud properties, atmospheric humidity and temperature profiles, surface temperature, other atmospheric constitutents. This is discussed in the previous thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/
Section 8.8.2 is about simple climate models, that have some of their components tuned to outputs from the big climate models.
jcurry 6/14/11, 11:29 am, Lindzen and Choi
Thank you, for the correction, and especially for the explanation. My reliance on ¶8.8.2 was misplaced.
Still, IPCC tells us the big climate models are (1) tuned, (2) tuned by parametrizations, and (3) the parametrizations are based on simplified physical models (just not the simple model of ¶8.8.2 used to test AOGCMs). It admits some are not explicitly tuned, which is to say some tuning is implicit. AR4, ¶8.1.3.1, p. 596. IPCC also calls the equation that yields 3.71 W/m^2 one of several Simplified expressions for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2, … . TAR, Table 6.2, p. 358. Do I read your explanation correctly to exclude the possibility that simplified physical models excludes the Simplified expressions?
Could it be that assumptions that go into radiative transfer, e.g., a standard atmosphere, a conventional CO2 absorption spectrum, and CO2 concentration proportional to pressure, rank as parameterizations, that they carry over into the big climate models, and hence bias them to 3.71 W/m^2?
Norm
Please check/source your assertion:
CO2 has numerous bending, symmetric stretch and asymmetric stretch vibration modes across a wide spectral range. See Animated Vibrational Modes of Triatomic Molecules
See the post:
CO2 in the Solar Spectrum
(For quantitative details see: SpectralCalc.com)
David,
My only rerence for the spectral limitations of CO2 is physical measurements of the Earth’s radiative spectrum. CO2 does not have a permanent dipole moment and therefore does not have a rotational mode and is limited to vibrational modes related to its makeup. Only the vibrational bend mode resonating at 14.77microns is in the range of the Earth’s radiative spectrum so it is the only one that has an effect on the Earth’s radiation.
By the way if you check the spectra from both Mars and Venus which have atmospheres of over 95% CO2 both show only one spectral notch centred on 14.77microns (wavenumber 677cm^-1) with no other spectral notches present.
The entire climate change issue is about theoretical aspects presented as real world facts but are not supported by physical measurements and this commentary is an example of this disassociation between theory and reality.
Jim Peden who designed the instrumentation and procedure for detecting the atmospheric signature of atmospheric nuclear tests providing the facility to identify nuclear tests in violation of the global ban on such tests is an expert on atmospheric CO2 effects and posted a piece that I had written for CCNet on his website
(see http://jimpeden.blogspot.com/)
This should be sufficient to demonstrate the validity of my statement about the limited effect from additional CO2
“CO2 does not have a permanent dipole moment and therefore does not have a rotational mode and is limited to vibrational modes”
This is completely wrong. CO2 has multiple rotational quantum transitions that are enabled by the temporary dipole moment consequent to its vibrational mode. This is one of the reasons for the multiple spectral lines on each side of the strongest line at wavenumber 667, and it is this composite of different quantum transitions with different probabilities (dependent on the number of molecules capable of experiencing a particular transition) that confers the logarithmic property on increasing CO2 within the range of interest for our climate. It is also a reason why atmospheric CO2 concentrations cannot become saturated to the point where more CO2 will no longer have an effect.
This is one of the most interesting discussions I have encountered for a long time. I hope Judy or someone else genuinely knowledgable continues with it, to clarify or challenge.
The region (aka window) where the Earth surface emits is between 7 and 14 microns. CO2 absorbs in part of that window. You need to go back and think about what you wrote.
Judith,
Reall? Lindzen tried to sneak this through with the worst form of pal review. Happer has absolutely no expertise in this area at all and Chou was his collaborator on the original (and widely discredited “Iris” paper, of which this seems to be another variant). Neither of these reviewers met the standards, IMHO, which the NAS lays out for the communicated pal review system.
The editor of PNAS suggest some reviewers who would be acceptable and Lindzen said that Ramanathan (who I think you would agree is a reasonable choice) would be acceptable. He countered with Minnis as another who would be acceptable (and who apparently did review the paper, according to LIndzen). Two others, whose identities remain unknown also reviewed the paper. All had similar criticisms. All said that the paper required major revisions.
Lindzen felt that upon making the requested revisions that the paper could not meet the page limitations of PNAS and so did not submit a revised version of the paper for consideration.
Since this paper is basically an iteration of Lindzen and Choi 2009 I don’t see anything wrong with requiring the paper to address concerns raised in the literature about that paper. Do you?
It would be more meaningful if you would/could write about what in the paper you disagree with and why. Who has reviewed etc. is really not important at the end of the day, it is if the position is correct that counts.
I am really not qualified to comment of the issues in the paper. I have read the previous paper and the responses. I am just commenting on the reviews of the paper, all of which agreed on the basic problems. This is pretty rare. Usually reviews have different objections. See the reviews of Fall, et. al. that Dessler provided (link above).
“Who has reviewed etc. is really not important at the end of the day,”
Who reviewed it and why is the primary focus of Dr. Curry’s post.
“it is if the position is correct that counts.”
It’s not correct. All four reviewers, including the two Lindzen deemed acceptable, stated that the paper did not have the evidence to support its conclusions. In terms of the position, there’s nothing to say. It’s garbage.
What is the page limitation?
NAS policy on referees says:
We have adopted the NSF policy concerning conflict of interest for referees (http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/coi.shtml), which states that individuals who have collaborated and published with the author in the preceding four years should not be selected as referees.
Chou and Harper met the criteria. So as usual there’s no basis in your statements.
You got to be kidding that Happer was an appropriate reviewer. He knows nothing about how climate sensitivity calculations are done. In fact, given his recent op-ed about climate shows that he really is quite an idiot. PNAS picked that one up;
And what do you know about climate sensitivity and what expertise do you have? How many papers have you published. Can you list out a few? All you’ve been doing is spreading disinformation and acting as apologist for the warmists, going from blog to blog and giving the most tenous and sycophantic excuses for any misdoing from any of the AGW crowd. That is very well documented. So on that basis what is your credibility to judge Happer?
Lindzen has given his counter argument on why he felt Happer was appropriate. And PNAS stated that both reviewers fitted the criteria. You stated that Chou was a pal reviewer and he was not, as per PNAS’ own criteria.
Please cite a single article which Happer has published on climate sensitivity. Lindzen claimed that Happer didn’t know anything about sensitivity. His argument was that Happer was a reasonable reviewer because he had some understanding of the radiative physics involved. Looking at his home page, it doesn’t seem that he might know a whole lot about this subject.
Based on that, he hasn’t been working on climate sensitivity., Has Happer ever published on climate sensitivity? Not hat I know of…
As I said above, Chou is marginal, but when Chou is presented along with Happer, a sane man would have to ask questions.
Lubos Motl answered the issue of Harper’s relevance at CA, where I noticed that you were trying your usual tricks
” I find the description of Prof Happer as an unqualified person amazing.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=william-happer
Happer has done lots of things that use qualitatively similar – but more advanced – physics as the greenhouse effect. In particular, his optical pumping paper has 1100+ citations. There are many other highly influential papers he has co-authored and he has investigated the climate topics in some detail for years.
What’s really special about the specialized, “qualified” climate scientists whom you would prefer as referees is that they have never contributed anything genuine to the real science – and they form a clique. I don’t think that any of these two features should be presented as an advantage.”
The question about Happer is very well answered.
The question is “does he know anything about climate?”. The answer, given his rather stupid op-ed in firstthings is “no”. Sure he knows lots of things about physics, but he does not appear to be an expert in anything relating to the calculation of sensitivity. Happer may be a very good physicist in the area in which is an expert, but he is a clown in this particular area.
The answer to that question is just your opinion, which means zilch,
No, it’s the opinion of the editor of PNAS, which means a lot.
I think a bit of research on the back story surrounding Happer might be worthwhile before claiming he knows nothing about this area. Perhaps start by reading p 19 et seq in http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1935-2004.27.pdf as just one reference.
The opinion of the PNAS editor also means zilch. The facts speak out about Happer’s competence. Biased opinions of unethical editors and biased opinions of CAGW climate science apologists mean nothing.
Rattus
Lay off the ad hominem “stupid”. If you do not have objective scientific or policy comments please desist from degrading civilization, wasting our time, and demonstrating your incompetence.
I bet he knows the difference between Chou and Choi.
seriously, I’m not at all convinced that the estimation of sensitivity requires any specialized knowledge of climate. After all, if climate science is a science and relies on physics, as I believe it does, then anyone with knowledge of physics can vet the method. Is there some secret climate physics involved?
Rattus Norvegicus
The math used to be common high school algebra (but perhaps not in your education). Happer, honored as the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is well qualified to review that. Happer appears to have a good overall grasp of The Truth about Greenhouse Gases.
Happer has never published science in atmospheric physics or climate. The optical pumping stuff he used to do and spin polarized stuff he is doing more recently, is pure atomic spectroscopy, the former almost all with alkali atoms. Happer’s lineage is out of the II Rabi, Polycarp Kusch labs at Columbia. The one time Eli saw something from him at a poster on “optical snow” it was obvious he didn’t know much about chemical reactions.
The paper with all the cites is an article in Reviews of Modern Physics about optical pumping in alkali atoms. That community has moved on to Bose-Einstein condensates and atomic clocks, not climate.
There is no way that Happer would be an appropriate reviewer of the Lindzen and Choi paper.
“Happer has done lots of things that use qualitatively similar – but more advanced – physics as the greenhouse effect.”
That’s nuts. Performing heart surgery is similar to, but more advanced than, performing a c-section, but it doesn’t mean that the person who has trained and practiced to do the advanced thing knows how to do all the simpler things. In fact, it is often characteristic of people who know how to do the highly advance thing that they cannot do many simple things — they give up those skills to achieve specialization.
At 11:12 PM on 13 June, Robert shoves his foot all the way down his own throat, writing:
Very crappy analogy, Robert. I don’t know what you’ve been inadequately educated to do, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the practice of medicine – or any allied health care work – that’s for damned sure.
Robert, I’m a country GP with a bunch of years experience running Emergency Departments in small hospitals, and I sure as hell can perform a caesarian section. I know the anatomy, I’ve been in the pregnant belly a bunch of times, and all this notwithstanding, I would kill to get an experienced cardiothoracic surgeon in that operating room to take over the procedure, knowing that his abilities beat the hell out of mine.
A guy who can crack a chest and fiddle with the coronary plumbing can knock off even a complicated c-section in his sleep. These guys have to go into the abdomen all the time, and do their vascular work on the aorta and other great vessels in the retroperitoneal space as well as within the peritoneum proper. Popping open a gravid uterus, extracting the contents, and closing up afterwards is child’s play for a chest cutter.
Robert, write about what you actually know, okay?
At 11:12 PM on 13 June, Robert shoves his foot all the way down his own throat, writing:
Very bad analogy, Robert. I don’t know what you’ve been inadequately educated to do, but it surely has nothing to do with the practice of medicine – or any allied health care work – that’s for sure.
Robert, I’m a country GP with a bunch of years experience running Emergency Departments in small hospitals, and I can perform a caesarian section. I know the anatomy, I’ve been in the pregnant belly a bunch of times, and all this notwithstanding, I would kill to get an experienced cardiothoracic surgeon in that operating room to take over the procedure, knowing that his abilities beat the daylights out of mine.
A guy who can crack a chest and fiddle with the coronary plumbing can knock off even a complicated c-section in his sleep. These guys have to go into the abdomen all the time, and do their vascular work on the aorta and other great vessels in the retroperitoneal space as well as within the peritoneum proper. Popping open a gravid uterus, extracting the contents, and closing up afterwards is child’s play for a chest cutter.
Robert, write about what you actually know, okay?
Spot on, Rich.
We have a lot of fact free hot air from our resident troll always. And if he has to follow your request, he can’t write about anything!
Rich –
Robert, write about what you actually know, okay
He can’t, Rich – he doesn’t know anything.
My father was a line corpsman with the USMC during WW2. Their surgeons included cardiac surgeons. They had a guy who was doing research on traumatic brain injuries before the war. He had a tent down by Mt. Suribachi that was full brain injuries. The US Navy surgeons were an elite bunch.
But this I found interesting. When they had a jaw wound, or a wound in the vicinity of the jaw, they would, if at all possible, route the casualty to the regiment’s dentist, who could do jaw surgery better than any of the MDs, and all those prima donnas were apparently in agreement on that.
JCH –
AFAIK, they didn’t – and still don’t teach dentistry in chest-cutter school.
Just like they don’t teach auto mechanics in engineer school. That didn’t matter anyway – I still ran a sports car shop for 3 years cause I got THAT education and more courtesy of the USMC.
Sorry if I touched a nerve with you, Rich. Apparently you just don’t know much about modern medicine. Maybe there’s a reason you’re rotting away in the countryside, eh?
I’m not at all interested in the credentials you claim to have. Perhaps I have even more impressive credentials. You aren’t the only physician in the world. But I prefer to use evidence and reason, not arguments from authority based on self-proclaimed accomplishment,
Jim, again, I’m sorry I thrashed you so thoroughly in our previous debates. Evidently the damage done is semi-permanent, since you follow me from thread to thread, inserting your off-topic whining about the guy who schooled you into discussions that you have nothing to add to.
Mostly I ignore you, but I wanted to say, you have my pity, and I hope you will eventually be able to move on.
At 12:09 AM on 14 June, Robert idiotically shoves even harder with that foot down his own throat, writing insane nonsense about how yours truly is somehow supposed not to
Sure, there’s a reason. I’m good at it. Heck, I trained to be a country GP. Specialization is boring. But Robert pointlessly continues:
Oh? And what kind of “evidence and reason,” Robert, led you to the idiot supposition that a cardiothoracic surgeon couldn’t knock off a caesarian section without breaking a sweat?
Whatever in hell you fantasize about your own supposedly “impressive credentials” (remember, folks, “:On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog“), you still obviously don’t know doo-dah about surgical intervention in pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, fetal distress, dystocia, or any of the other indications for such action.
At 12:09 AM on 14 June, Robert idiotically shoves even harder with that foot down his own throat, writing insane nonsense about how yours truly is somehow supposed not to
Sure, there’s a reason. I’m good at it. Heck, I trained to be a country GP. Specialization is boring. But Robert pointlessly continues:
Oh? And what kind of “evidence and reason,” Robert, led you to the idiot supposition that a cardiothoracic surgeon couldn’t knock off a caesarian section without breaking a sweat?
Whatever in heck you fantasize about your own supposedly “impressive credentials” (remember, folks, “:On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog“), you still obviously don’t know bupkis about surgical intervention in pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, fetal distress, dystocia, or any of the other indications for such action.
Are we to assume from this that if you had authored a paper on climate sensitivity, then you would be happy to have as a referee someone who had their own paper on climate sensitivity?
Yes
I wish Rattus Norvergicus were a troll, but since it seems to be sincere, I feel I should respond to one of his comments:
He knows nothing about how climate sensitivity calculations are done.
I know something about how climate sensitivities are calculated, and I never took anything beyond low level physics classes. Are we really expected to believe a physicist knows less than I know about the subject? Of course not. This is a flagrant and ridiculous exaggeration which serves only to belittle someone Rattus dislikes. This sort of behavior is petty and stupid, but Rattus uses it on a regular basis.
This sort of behavior can do nothing but stifle communication and alienate people. If you don’t want to ignore him, please at least call him out when he behaves like this.
I would find it satisfactory were the PNAS simply to designate in each case those papers which are genuinely peer-reviewed and those which get published as “vanity press” elements submitted by NAS members.
When you consider the matter, NAS member papers – not having to survive the rigors of honest peer review – are of markedly less virtue and value than are those which reach publication only after passing through the refining process to which the editors of PNAS subject the submissions of lesser mortals.
There is an intellectually incestuous dishonesty in the present scheme that degrades what ought to be a trustworthy national society, making it in fact a coterie of invested Brahmins more involved in the embalming of scientific investigation than the furtherance of that process.
They do.
Of PNAS and “truth in advertising” about the designation of member “pal review” versus auslander peer review articles, Rattus norvegicus writes that “They do..”
Thanks. I’m just a primary care grunt, and I’m not familiar with anything like this happening in the medical literature. Research and review papers are either run through the same peer review process or they don’t appear in those journals holding themselves to be venues for reliable information. To the best of my knowledge, fellowship in one of the medical professional societies, colleges, or academies doesn’t confer any sort of “pal review” privilege in the peer-reviewed periodicals of those associations.
Why does it do so in the NAS? Seems – on the face of it – to be productive of nothing more than a self-perpetuating petrification of Things As They Are.
PNAS differentiates between the various classes of papers. Read the policy statement Judith linked to. This one was a track III paper. PNAS tells you which track a paper took to publication. My understanding is that most of the papers submitted to PNAS are directly submitted (traditional peer review).
Read PNAS’s reply
” Both scientists are formally eligible for refereeing according to the PNAS rules, but one of them (WH) is certainly not an expert for the topic in question and the other one (MDC) has published extensively on the very subject together with Lindzen. So, in a sense, he is reviewing his own work…”
So PNAS agree that both are eligible. And Chou’s last publication with Lindzen was in 2001, 10 years ago. So how the hell would he be ” reviewing his own work “?
They seem to have conflated Chou with Choi.
Because that 2001 paper is basic to Lindzen and Choi I and II
The problem I have always had with the LC paper, and this one too, is that they first make a connection between SST and outgoing radiation over the tropical oceans taking short-term responses of radiation to SST changes from which they derive a sensitivity. Then they say this is the same sensitivity you would get if the forcing wasn’t SST, but GHGs, the area wasn’t the tropical ocean but the globe, and the time-scale wasn’t months but decades. I would be skeptical of all these jumps.
Indeed, this is the elephant in the room that neither side addresses. Why do we believe that climate sensitivity is a constant. We have not even come far enough in this area to state that it is always the same sign……..it likely isn’t. Even if we could know it in one geographic location, over one type of topography, at one point in time this tells us nothing about what it will be, or has been, given different boundary conditions.
This is why regional sensitivity makes no sense. Only global sensitivity is a well defined concept. Regions have a tendency to interact with each other such that sensitivities are meaningless when defined in terms of local effects from local causes, neglecting boundary effects and causes, as Lindzen did.
Global sensitivity may be a “well defined concept” but this doesn’t solve the issue of changing boundary conditions. For example, there is still no reason to believe that global sensitivity is the same when there is little water vapor in the atmosphere (e.g. ice age) v when there is relatively more (e.g. now).
No, it is not expected to be. The sensitivity is known to include a far larger ice albedo feedback when there are large ice caps. The temperature changed up to 8 C while CO2 increased 50% coming out of the ice ages, which is a much larger sensitivity than now due to the much reduced ice albedo feedback in the current climate.
JimD –
This is why regional sensitivity makes no sense.
The sensitivity is known to include a far larger ice albedo feedback when there are large ice caps.
Gotta make up your mind, Jim. What you just said there is that sensitivity is both spatially and temporally variable. If you understand what you said then you’ll have almost caught up to where I was two years ago. :-)
No, global albedo is what matters for global sensitivity, and ice caps affect the total global albedo, even if they are only regional.
I think when it all shakes out, you’ll find that that’s not the case. I’m planning to live long enough to see that. :-)
Initial water vapor mass has a non linear effect on cloud formation also. Please note I used water vapor as but one of many confounding factors. I hope scientists are having similar conversations about many other factors.
This is another reason LC’s focus on the tropics is wrong. The Arctic sensitivity, where it is drier, is very different and expected to be larger than the tropics as a result.
Yes, I made this point in the original climateaudit thread.
It’s really impossible to tell to whom curryja is replying. Jim D?
I suspect JC is agreeing that the Arctic would be more important to look at if you are looking for climate sensitivity.
Nope, just that the tropics don’t represent the globe. The arctic itself is a relatively small fraction of the globe. The feedback processes in play in the Arctic are quite different from those in play in the tropics.
A question to other commenters on this blog — what was the review process used by PNAS that permitted publication of Steve Schneider’s infamous “black list” earlier this year? Anyone even remotely familiar with Google Scholar knows just how inadequate this source is for tracking scientific publications of individual scientists/engineers, including myself.
The Schneider paper was a communicated paper (track III). But it wasn’t a blacklist paper, it was based on public statements by people. It doesn’t seem particularly evil to categorize based on things that they have said in the past. It does seem that the study does not account for changes in views over time.
I have a question here, is this likely (the main problem is likely to be UE to CE over time which is not picked up in the public statements…
It is clearly evident that the Schneider “black list” was aimed at discrediting those individuals who were not as well published in the so-called “peer reviewed” techincal literature as those associated with the “Global Warming Alarmists”. Please understand that you’re talking to a long time participant in the technical peer review process, and it is clear that something is terribly amiss in this latest example of Schneiderian nonsense.
You need to go back and read this abortion of a “technical” paper. The clear message of this paper is that quantity of publications (based on a faulty reference system) is what counts, not the quality — a message in clear contradiction to the message conveyed to me by my professors at UC Berkeley in the early 1970’s.
Mescalero, Rattus’ intention is not to engage in conversation. It is to spread disinformation. Anyone who supports and finds excuses Schneider’s abomination of an article is not somebody who’s interested in rational or reasonable debate. That person is out here to spin, obfuscate and shamelessly defend the indefensible.
It was a blacklist paper. People were classified as skeptics based on being signatories to petitions and papers twenty years ago. Many so classified are not skeptics at all. The day it came out Joe Romm called for them to be ignored by the media.
The level of scholarship was pathetic. They got jobs wrong, names wrong, specialites wrong. They didn’t even do the math right, as RomanM proved over in a comment at Real Climate. The paper should have been buried with Spencer Weart’s condemnation of it as being unworthy of publication.
Rattus Norvegicus has seen all this criticism. I wonder why he forgets it when he thinks he has a new audience for his prevarications?
I said that the fact that actions of 20 years ago (with no subsequent action showing a change of opinion) was a weakness. I don’t recall an article from Romm slamming the PNAS paper. Perhaps this is the article you are thinking of? Not exactly a slam, although he did slam Morano’s characterization of it in a subsequent post.
Romm didn’t slam it. He said the skeptics named in it should be ignored by the media. The age of the petitions is the least of the weaknesses of that paper, as you well know.
Sorry Tom. The only antecedent for the pronoun “them” seemed to be the authors of the paper.
Reading the comment/response chain on the paper is fairly instructive. The complaint about the use of the keyword “denier” is especially weak. There are lots of examples of schools of thought which deny the evidence of various flavors (vaccine, HIV, evolution for just a few) and the term “denier” has been used to describe these people w/o them making the claim that they are being tied to holocaust deniers.
The second comment which brings up Kon Tiki is also interesting. Heyerdhal’s voyage is brought up as some sort of a counter argument. Yet this does not show anything. Why would a culture which has no evidence of being a seafaring people have made such a voyage? There is some evidence of contact between Polynesian people and South American people (the introduction of the sweet potato to the Polynesian crop package being the main one) and it does not seem odd to think that one of the greatest Pre-Columbian seafaring peoples might have made it to the coast of South America (after all, they made it to Hawaii and Easter Island). Yes sometimes the consensus can be overturned, but it does not happen very often.
You should really look at chickens if you want to investigate pre-Columbian contact, Rattus. South Americans sailed hundreds, if not thousands, of miles routinely and safely in reed boats, but they did it south to north,not east to west. That’s harder sailing, by the way–Grace Kelly dancing backwards in heels.
None of which has anything to do with the trash that is Anderegg, Prall et al. As I wrote when it came out, the goal is despicable–tarring those who disagree with the consensus and scaring younger scientists into submission. The workmanship was shoddy. They used one commercial database, did not check against any of the available academic databases, searched only in English. Their analysis plan was flawed as RomanM pointed out in great detail. Their ethics was non-existent. They violated the first canon of social research and the most important one. They exposed their research subjects to harm by leaving their identities on Prall’s smear-site. I’m still waiting for him to put bullseyes on their pictures. He has their pictures on his website. Go get a denialister today, Prall. Got your shotgun?
That you can talk about this as if it were a scientific paper says more about you than it does about any scientist who once signed a petition. If this is the standard to which climate science aspires, then you can pin the denialister tail on this donkey, too. Fortunately, it isn’t. But Anderegg, Prall et all in PNAS isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.
And anybody who defends that piece of garbage is just begging for a violation of Godwin’s Law.
Tom,
I’ll just reply to one of your more ridiculous furphy’s.
How are people who publicly put their names to petitions, in any way harmed by being identified as having voluntarily put their names on those petitions??
Maybe by the same bizarre logic I could sue Judith for making my comments here visible to others.
Less foaming at the mouth, more rational thought……if that’s not too much to ask.
Michael –
How are people who publicly put their names to petitions, in any way harmed by being identified as having voluntarily put their names on those petitions??
Are you really that naive? There have been public suggestions/proposals/threats, some of them from public officials, that “denialists” should be imprisoned, tortured, branded, killed, committed to insane asylums or various other nastinesses. Publicizing their identities makes them vulnerable to any crank (alarmist of otherwise) who feels put upon and wants to take it out on someone.
What? You think there are no cranks (alarmist of otherwise) that woujld do that ? I hope not, bcause that would mean you’re not just naive but s****d. And I wouldn’t want to think that of you now, would I.
So.. let me ask – how would you feel if your identity were publicized as an alarmist who wants to, for example, raise taxes, make fuel more expensive, institute universal mandatory birth control, give the UN control over the entire globe, etc? Do you understand that there are almost certainly cranks who would take umbrage at your purported actions (even if those things were not true) ? And that some of them are not nice people at all? Would you really be comfortable with that level of exposure? I think not.
So why do you approve of that same level of exposure for others – regardless of who they are? Are you insensitive? A thug? A sadist? Do you lack compassion for others? Or are you what some of your compatriots publicly call others without realizing that you’re projecting?
I think you haven’t given sufficient thought to a matter that can be – and has been in the past – a danger to life and limb for many people.
Michael below this: You are perpetuating a slime job. Have you read the paper? Have you read the petitions scientists signed? Have you read the list of the scientists who have been defamed? Or are you just making the rounds spouting the party line?
The paper wouldn’t make it through a seventh grade science lab.
Many of the petitions, especially the early ones, could have been honestly signed by James Hansen, given how they were worded.
Many of the scientists who are on the list are not skeptics. In this Lysenko-ized climate where pal review and green funding dominate the research agenda, these people are harmed. They have been labeled deniers–check the tag on the flipping paper, Michael.
In the world you have helped create, a climate scientist labeled a denier is in big trouble. That’s sick enough–you are helping destroy science as an institution. But to falsely accuse people of it is just disgusting. Has Prall posted what color triangle they’ll have to wear?
Thanks for the fulminations Tom.
Yes, I’ve read them.
The hyperventilations over it are quite something. The degree of which appear to be in direct proportion to be degree of discomfort at the findings.
Jim,
“give the UN control over the entire globe, etc…”
Well, that pretty much says it all.
Pardon me if I don’t find the rantings of fringe conspiracy theorists worthy of much consideration.
Michael,
You are perpetuating Slime as science.
And ” Pardon me if I don’t find the rantings of fringe conspiracy theorists worthy of much consideration.”
So why are you here posting about it?
Venter,
It’s sociologically fascinating.
Oh, you mean trolling. Got it.
If you will.
Michael –
Yes, I’ve read them.
So you obviously either didn’t/don’t understand or approve of the implications for those who were slimed.
“give the UN control over the entire globe, etc…”.
I asked you a question. Obviously you don’t want to answer it, which, again, means you eiher didn’t/don’t understand or you approve of the implications for those who were slimed.
Pardon me if I don’t find the rantings of fringe conspiracy theorists worthy of much consideration. .
Misquoting me and then accusing me of “crimes against humanity” doesn’t make you any smarter or me guilty of your accusations.
Now – allow me to rephrase the question – if your name were publicized as a child molester, do you understand that there are those who would take umbrage at your purported actions (even if it were not true) ? And that some of them are not nice people at all? Would you really be comfortable with that level of exposure?
It’s sociologically fascinating. .
The term “sociologically fascinating” wrt actions that put others at risk, and of which you apparently approve, places you precisely in the hierarchy of human (but not “civilized) behavior. I think the proper word for that level is “pond slime”. Or possibly – lower than whale dung.
And, as you said –
Well, that pretty much says it all. .
What the hell are you on about? Who has accused you of “crimes against humanity”? What has labelling someone a “child molester” got to do with this?
Some people put their names to certain public statements about the reality or otherwise of AGW. Someone compiled a list of people who had signed what particular statements, summarising information which was already in the public domain.
If people don’t want their views to be made public then they shouldn’t sign petitions, write op eds in the media, publish or comment on blogs etc. But people do these things and they often receive criticism, sometimes unfair and over the top, sometimes ridiculously and unpleasantly so. And very occasionally they get actual threats. But this is pretty rare and the notion that people who have opinions on either side of the argument were either difficult to identify prior to the Schneider paper being published or are generally in danger from their views being known is absurd.
aa –
What the hell are you on about? Who has accused you of “crimes against humanity”? What has labelling someone a “child molester” got to do with this?
If you dont know, then it’s because you also fail to understand the issue. Which might put you in the same class as Michael.
Some people put their names to certain public statements about the reality or otherwise of AGW. Someone compiled a list of people who had signed what particular statements, summarising information which was already in the public domain.
For what purpose? That’s not science, it’s nothing but political dirt, IOW – slime. Which has become common in the US wrt political figures, but is NOT considered acceptable for private individuals.
Nor was it properly reseached because some of those named were lied about –
If people don’t want their views to be made public then they shouldn’t sign petitions, write op eds in the media, publish or comment on blogs etc.
And what about those who did NOT do those things – and were named? IOW, were lied about.
And very occasionally they get actual threats. But this is pretty rare
How rare? And how many on each side of the debate? Numbers, please –
And if it’s that rare, why have “I” been threatened? I’m not exactly “high profile”. And I wasn’t even named in that paper – but it’s happened anyway.
the notion that people who have opinions on either side of the argument were either difficult to identify prior to the Schneider paper being published or are generally in danger from their views being known is absurd.
Really? Read this –
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/#comment-74941
And then tell me there’s no harm – particularly to those who were lied about/slimed.
The paper was the equivalent of a supermarket tabloid, but without as much truth.
The purpose of the paper was to demonstrate the relative strength of support amongst scientists publishing on the subject of climate change for the “consensus” position and the “skeptical” one. If you are asserting anything to the contrary then you’re going to have to provide some actual evidence.
Whether this should be the stuff of academic papers I’m not sure, and I make no claim about the quality of the research – IF some scientists were incorrectly categorised then that’s likely to be sloppy work, that doesn’t mean the authors were “lying”. And it’s not as if scientists have never had their views mischaracterised in “skeptical” lists.
Your central objection seems to depend on two propositions – firstly that without Schneider et al’s efforts “skeptical” scientists would somehow be difficult to identify and secondly the fact they are “skeptical” puts them at some kind of risk. The latter is the more serious charge but again it requires some kind of evidence to back it up. If you have been personally threatened then of course that us disgraceful but I’ve not seen any evidence that “scientists are routinely subject to physical threats as a result of being “skeptics” (or being portrayed as such).
There have been criticisms of the paper by “warmist” scientists so I’m certainly happy to accept that there are legitimate crificisms to be made of it but as usual the “skeptics” react in such a hysterical, hyperbolic and unreasoning way that any legitimate concerns they may have get lost in the heat of the argument.
Schmidt and Trenberth are hardly impartial reviewers. They are biased reviewers and pals. That they were appointed as reviewers for this shows the bias of NAS. And crap papers like Schneider’s garbage about classification of scientists etc. were published, no doubt with reviewers of his choice.
So NAS is corrupt when it comes to publishing. It’s a political organisation, not scientific anymore.
I just read Anderegg et al’s replies to the numerous comments their ‘paper’ generated. In one response, they argue that their use of the word ‘denier’ is justified by the scientific literature.
Absolute rock-bottom
Here is a quote, from one of their responses (to O’Neil and Boykoff):
“O’Neill and Boykoff (2) take issue with us including “climate denier” as one of the article’s key terms, citing its supposed moralistic tone and potential link with Holocaust denial. However, denialism has been well established in the literature as a relevant and appropriate concept and frequently applied to the ACC discourse (3–5).”
This is science?
Let’s face it, the term “denier” is a guilt-by-association tactic. That the PNAS has stooped to Anderegg’s and Schneider’s tactics to shut off debate via guilt-by-association arguments does not say a lot for the integrity of the PNAS.
Mescalero –
What Integrity?
OK, rejectionist
No, “rejectionist” is not good. Instead of “alarmists”, “warmists”, “conformist” or “deniers”, “contrarians” and “rejectionist” it is better just to say “convinced” or “unconvinced”. as per this Keith Seitter article here via PielkeSr
Judith,
could you do a post on the vocabulary used in climate science? That would be a good discussion, IMHO. Words and phrases like climate science, global warming, and science are often misused. The scientists often do or don’t mean anthropogenic when making statements. The taxonomy is all over the map and the language is imprecise.
I’ve seen a draft of Seitter’s essay, its a good one. I agree the taxonomy is all over the map. Let me think about this.
I agree very much Doug!
Even AGW is dishonest and Orwelian, because CO2GW is implied.
For example, I am very unconvinced of CO2GW, but do not dismiss some AGW, although I find it very unlikely that it’s significant/measurable.
ALW, on the other hand, is obvious.
Well, there is always Eli Rabett’s Simple Plan to Save the World and the Bunny’s five fold way of dealing with climate change
Hm. When it comes to dealing with aggressively intrusive “Liberal” fascist global warming alarmists bent upon the violation of individual human rights in the pursuit of their insane religious beliefs, I maintain a preference for the three-fold way of dealing.
“Shoot, shovel, and shut up.“
Hi Elmer
I have not read Eli offer any policy suggestions that make any sense. He used to favor mitagation- do you still think that makes sense??
Yes, it demonstrates that they are overly-reductive and not very open minded.
I’ll try and answer a lot of questions here…
Well, we don’t know if Schmidt and Treberth were reviewers. Lindzen stated that Minnis was one of the reviewer (his choice) and that he suspects that Ramanathan was another reviewer (Lindzen felt that he might be impartial). Having scientists who have published conflicting results is fairly common, you don’t get a free ride in the peer review system, you had better be able to answer hard questions about your work.
As far as Happer (WH) being qualified to review the paper? He has been involved with one paper which mentioned climate. See here. Since he has never done any work in this area, I think we can safely say that he is unqualified to review this work. That’s the way the game works. Peer reviewers have to be, well, peers.
As far as the disqualification of Chou, he and Lindzen have written several papers together on the “Iris effect” which was the first of a series of papers which LIndzen has published asserting that there is a very strong negative cloud feedback. PNAS is correct here, IMHO, in saying that he is in essence reviewing his own work. BTW, the last paper was published in 2005. YMMV.,
The important thing here is that all the reviewers agreed about what the basic flaws of the paper were. Most importantly, since this was an extension of LIndzen and Choi,
GRL, 2009. They really needed to answer the criticisms of the 2009 paper, as all four reviewers noted.
PNAS places a limit of six pages on articles. See here.
Finally, one special treatment. Here is the statement of referees if the two supplied by the author are not considered acceptable (as was the case here):
Lindzen was quite opposed to accepting any of the proposed referees. He proposed Minnis (who proposed some additional referees) but grudgingly said that Ramanathan was marginally acceptable (“most likely to be unbiased”). The policy does not say what will be done in the case where the author does not like any of the proposed referees. So yes, in this case he got “special treatment”, but mostly because of his own, rather recalcitrant, behavior. However all of the reviewers agreed on the basic flaws of the paper.
Judith,
It’s probably waste of time asking for your opinion on the LC paper. You don’t seem to part with your opinion too easily! But I guess we’d all like to know.
You say you found the PNAS reviews ” actually quite thorough and do not seem unfair to me” and you published a paper yourself in PNAS in 2010 “Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice”. So you should know better than us. However many contributors on this site, and also WUWT, would have no hesitation in describing the contents as “warmist”. One said the PNAS only takes “warmist papers” as some sort of excuse. My comment was that if you disliked their editorial policy you should have done as LC have, and published elsewhere.
It does seem that there may be a slight disconnect between the Judith Curry of Climate etc and the Judith Curry who publishes ‘warmist’ papers in PNAS!
Others in earlier threads have commented about the apparent disconnect between the Judith Curry who publishes “warmist” scientific papers yet engages with dissenting views on Climate Etc.
IMO, I see no disconnect. Dr Curry presumably is generating hypotheses via climate models based on Southern Ocean data. In generating her hypotheses, she can then seek further data to test the robustness of her modelling hypothesis. This is just ordinary science.
You cannot do science without some kind of a priori stance or model. Take away the model and you have no more than a jumble of meaningless facts. A model provides coherence even if wrong – a disproved model subsequently allows science to progress and avoid blind alleys.
Hence, Dr Curry’s comments about the need to publish a potentially controversial paper even if it has flaws because of its heuristic value. For that matter, no paper however meticulous its methodology will be free of flaws as all scientific hypotheses inevitably involve gross oversimplifications of the real world. This problem is particularly manifest in the field of clinical drug trials which generally adopt strict prescribing protocols on artificially homogeneous populations as contrasted with the chaotic complexities of real world patient populations.
The first author on a paper decides where to publish. I have not been a first author on any paper published in PNAS. It would not be my personal choice to publish in that journal. Note, Liu and Curry was a Track II paper (submitted without communication), a class of papers that has a very low chance of being published in in PNAS.
PNAS = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the world’s most respected scientific bodies. It would seem a damning implied criticism that you personally would choose to not publish in their journal. Does this criticism extend to issues other than climate science and the AGW issue?
If so, what else have they got wrong? IYO
I don’t like their review procedures and I don’t like their preferences for “sensational” science, at least in the field of climate science.
PNAS is a very high impact journal. However, incidents like this one will certainly lower the credibility of PNAS on issues of climate for some time. One would have expected them to learn something from Climategate.
” However, incidents like this one will certainly lower the credibility of PNAS on issues of climate for some time.”
Yes. It’s unbelievable that PNAS don’t understand that the path to credibility lies in publishing Lindzen’s highly flawed work after review by his hand-picked non-experts.
Did you miss the art where Lindzen himself says that the paper is not “the last word”?
As for PNAS, their policy is apparently to allow hand-picked non-experts only for alarmist papers. They really should modify their policy document to make that explicit.
FYI: Steve McIntyre has commented and abstracted some portions of the reviews, with references to other commenters. Dr. Curry may have covered above many (if not all) of the points made in McIntyre’s blog.
McIntyre, Steve. 2011. Lindzen’s PNAS Reviews. Scientific Blog. Climate Audit. June 10. http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/10/lindzens-pnas-reviews/
[1] http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/
Yes, I just came here because I noticed Judith’s post on Bishop Hill – and I only noticed that because I had just quoted contributor ‘j’ on BH on the special nature of PNAS on Climate Audit!
As a complete outsider, Judith, I’d prefer that PNAS remained a ‘vanity publishing’ enterprise for Academicians – with of course no distinction made in the AGW area between convinced, lukewarmer or denier, as Lindzen with black humour chooses to be style himself. I’m always reminded in this kind of area of Michael Atiyah, recently head of our own academy, in his tribute to Roger Penrose in 1998:
That’s from The Geometric Universe, p7. Three pages earlier I’d been shocked to see a familiar name mentioned, the first time I realised that an old friend had become a bit famous and picked up a Fields Medal in the process. But that’s another story. We sure need the “gene pool” filling in climate science.
Am I the only one finding somebody that insults people on blogs from behind the protection of anonimity, peculiarly idiotic and uncivilized?
No, you’re not the only one.
The term “denier” is intended as an insult. A significant insult. It is widely used by PHD climate scientists to refer to people that do not share their beliefs in the correctness of various theories and hypothesis.
None of these PHD scientists are doing this anonymously, so a more likely conclusion is that PHD’s in Climate Science can cause insulting behavior.
Judith Curry reserves the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing the issue of climate change. She has also chosen to differentiate between political skeptics and scientific skeptics.
I don’t believe anyone has a problem with a genuine scientific skeptic – except insofar as scientists are human, like everyone else, and do not like to admit they were in error even after it is quite clear to everyone else that they were.
There are not many of them. Most skeptics are what Judith would define as political.
So, in the main, we have political skeptics and deniers. So what’s the difference?
OK, rejectionist
Published any science in the field of pop psychology of late, have you, Eli?
Yep. See link
I challenge you to prove that most who are skeptical WRT global warming are also skeptical of “modern biology, modern medicine and more.” Show me the data or stop with the Alinskian tactics. I refer specifically to page 130 of socialist Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Show your data.
Enough, especially the key people have rejected any number of scientific positions although not everyone rejects everything all at once. Eli went through the changes on a few, the Freds, Singer and Seitz who clearly have rejected the science on tobacco, climate change, ozone, acid rain, and probably a few more, but who is counting.
Then we have Christy on evolution and the link up between the American Family Association and the climate change rejectionists., the whole American Association of Physicians and Surgeons edifice, seriously read their journal for rejectionism you got HIV, malaria, climate, vaccination rejectionism and other common delusions of the right,
Frankly you can wade through an awful lot of muck, there is a lot of rejection out there. Oh yeah, a bunch of crazy too
Oh yes, do you know that Chris Monckton can cure HIV.
OK, so you have no data. Your post is hereby relegated to the bin of pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. It is nothing more than a drive-by smearing.
Jimbo, that is a bunch of data. Face it rejection is a life style.
Copernicus rejected that the sun was at the center of the universe.
Galileo rejected Kepler’s idea that moon caused the tides.
Planck and Bohr rejected Einstein’s light quanta.
All were rejectionist. All disagreed against the consensus of science of their time.
Eli
As usual, nothing but a pile of baseless smears. Singer has NEVER questioned the scientific evidence that SMOKING tobacco causes cancer, merely that being exposed to passive smoke causes cancer. And he’s entirely correct, the evidence is clear that passive smoking is no great health risk. And acid rain was also a crock, wasn’t it – all those “dying” forests look pretty damn healthy today.
And I am amazed that you can throw in a line like “do you know that Chris Monckton can cure HIV” without a link – come on, without pretty strong evidence a claim like that makes you look like a total prat.
I am losing patience with those of limited intellect who keep insisting that, because someone holds a view on AGW they may not like, they are therefore assumed to hold a whole range of unlikely views (flat earth, moon landing faked, 911 truther, birther, tobacco harmless, HIV/AIDS, anti vaccination, creationist, world government conspiricist etc). Most of us hold no such views (I certainly don’t) and have no wish to be associated with them.
I defend my own views, not those of Eli Rabetts straw men
Singer used a two sided test when a one sided one is appropriate, unless you think that side stream smoke is health inducing, to come up with a false answer, for which he was paid by the Tobacco Institute through a small think tank. .
As to Monckton, take a look at the UK Independence Party site about him
“2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue.”
These guys have left a trail.
Judith, good points IMO.
I believe that controversial papers lead to a more rapid development of the scientific discussion on a topic than does preventing contentious papers to be published.
I have in the past recommended accepting papers that I thought were wrong, then turned around and wrote a response article criticizing it….I feel that these opposing views need an opportunity to be fairly aired (which is why I did not block publication), even if they face rebuttal for stating their views, and possibly humiliation if they take that sort of public criticism badly. (One of my sayings is, if you don’t like being criticized, stop making so many mistakes.)
The argument is played out in public, people who aren’t privy to “conference wars”, where people battle each other during a conference session, are made aware of the controversy, and science gets advanced.
I worry that some people in the climate community are so politicized that they are more interested in controlling the message to the public than they are in advancing scientific understanding. My impression is that is what happened here.
PNAS looks to be the loser here. Why should anyone with a serious interest in learning more about climate science bother to read a journal which seems to operating a form of censorship?
They’ll just have to muddle through without the blogosphere crowd I guess.
No doubt Coldish was an avid reader.
Norm Kalmanovitch (June 10, 2011 at 8:24 pm) has made some interesting points. Is anybody going to comment, or can we take it that what he has written is generally accepted?
The general quality of comments on blogs being what it is, there are a couple of hypothesis to explain the lack of comment:
a) It’s generally accepted.
b) It’s so stupid as to be unworthy of comment.
c) It’s too incoherent to extract an understandable argument from.
All you can conclude from the lack of the comment is that one of the above is true (or thought to be true by those who might comment.)
“Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.” – Niels Bohr
However, Norm comments sound plausible.
Judith,
I could give you a paper that is strictly dimensions and diameters for circular motion along with the significant differences to changing speed to torque and torque to speed based on observed circular behavior.
You still would have no clue as what I am talking about.
So unless I baby step through the mechanics as not to loose your thought process, you are a student and NOT a qualified person to “peer-review” my studies in circular motion.
So who is qualified to be the expert?
No mathematical formulas here as they fail with introduction of a time line.
Judith Curry
Agree wholeheartedly with your closing comment:
The validity (or lack thereof) of the L+C revision will be established by subsequent attempts at falsification, but the paper itself should not be “censored” out by a one-sided, bureaucratic publication process.
BTW (as I am sue you know) the original L+C 2009 paper was critiqued on his blog by Roy Spencer, who covered some of the points now being addressed and arrived at a different climate sensitivity than L+C, using the L+C data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
Max
“the paper itself should not be “censored” out by a one-sided, bureaucratic publication process.”
PNAS should learn from the blogosphere and let science run wild and free, for as the saying goes “Let your science run wild and free”.
I’m looking forward to seeing papers concerning the Iron Sun, electric universe and thermodynamic impossibility of the greenhouse effect in PNAS.
sharperoo
Surely you are not comparing climate science professor Richard Lindzen with those suggesting “the Iron Sun, electric universe and thermodynamic impossibility of the greenhouse effect”, are you?
Max
Max,
I’m applying your statement to those topics, how unfortunate that a misunderstanding has robbed you of the opportunity to explain why they should be ““censored” out by a one-sided, bureaucratic publication process.”
sharperoo
You write:
You apparently have the misunderstanding here, sharperoo, I do NOT feel “they should be ““censored” out by a one-sided, bureaucratic publication process”.
And the REASON I feel this is the case, is exactly the same reason cited by Judith.
So maybe we are all in agreement here.
Right?
Max
“You apparently have the misunderstanding here, sharperoo, I do NOT feel “they should be ““censored” out by a one-sided, bureaucratic publication process”.”
No problem, you want PNAS to open the doors such that all manner of gibberish is publishable.
“So maybe we are all in agreement here.”
Nope. I expended your logic to other topics and asked how it was possible to include Lindzen’s work yet exclude those. Your answer is that you desire to include those other examples.
People can decide for themselves if they find that outcome preferable.
sharperoo
It appears that when you run out of arguments, you substitute gibberish.
A ggod tactic.
Max
Sharperoo likes his country club the way it is.
sharperoo
The point here was well put by Judith.
The next paradigm shift in climate science may come from such a paper, which you ridicule as “wild and free” science.
Max
Yes and the children running wild and free might teach the adults a thing or two.
And just how do you think the present science and technology level evolved other than “wild and free”?
Big Al took the initiative in creating it. According to Progressive Creationist Theroy;)
Andrew
“And just how do you think the present science and technology level evolved other than “wild and free”?”
I think that people who claimed a certain thing was true had to work hard and produce evidence to that effect. They had to convince other people because changing what’s known about the natural world is meant to be difficult and based on evidence, not easy and based on “everyone gets a gold star, all you have to do is try”.
That’s actually a good short summary.
Now – why do you exempt climate “science” from that process?
I don’t exempt climate science from that process.
I am not the one claiming “opposing the consensus” is itself a notable attribute which should contribute towards the chances of being published.
Yes you are. That’s the only attribute you think is notable. If it opposes ‘concensus’ or is ‘wild and free’ you think it should be given no chance. Your opinion is clearly one sided.
“If it opposes ‘concensus’ or is ‘wild and free’ you think it should be given no chance. Your opinion is clearly one sided.”
Yes Teddy that’s a very good analysis of my position. Your reading comprehension is excellent and I look forward to your many papers being published in “New PNAS”
Sharperoo –
Yes Teddy that’s a very good analysis of my position.
Actually, it is. Your words –
I think that people who claimed a certain thing was true had to work hard and produce evidence to that effect.
Lindzen “worked hard” just to ge tpublished – and he presents more “evidence” (and without the vaunted “model outputs”) than I’ve seen from most of the rest of climatology. Is he entirely right? Probably not. But he and Spencer (2010) have explored directions that have been dismissed by hand waving by the consensus. And that exploration IS science.
The rest of the field has produced a “storyline” and has spent the last 20 years trying to prove that storyline to be the final solution. And they have NOT succeeded except by argumentum ad populum. But they HAVE succeeded in keeping others from making any significant progress. IOW, the present consensus has been the same kind of roadblock (consensus) that kept humans ignorant wrt astronomy for 2500 years until the time of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler.
Remember this – Lindzen may not be entirely right – but neither were Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and Newton. But they advanced scientific knowledge – do you really think todays climatologists are in their class?
“But he and Spencer (2010) have explored directions that have been dismissed by hand waving by the consensus. And that exploration IS science.”
It’s science when they can produce evidence. Spencer and Lindzen have opinions they cannot demonstrate. You like their opinions and want them published as if they were science. You might feel they have already done so but people knowledgeable on the topic disagree with you.
I find nothing notable about their results running contrary to consensus. I see no reason why the standard of publishing should be dropped just because some individuals decide to be special and do something “different”.
Sharperoo –
It’s science when they can produce evidence. Spencer and Lindzen have opinions they cannot demonstrate.
In that case, nearly all of climatology fails to class as science since most of it is based on model output ( which is NOT evidence). And in fact, nearly all of climatology consists of opinions that cannot be physically demonstrated.
In any case, your view of “science” is skewed. Science is the search for knowledge – it is NOT “received knowledge”. The practice of science involves a LOT of searching and a LOT of dead ends – even those that you don’t think are worthwhile. You may not approve of Lindzen or his paper, but that does not make him less a scientist or his paper less worthwhile.
OTOH, I happen to approve of the paper because it is NOT a continuation of the same line of inquiry that has failed to produce the results that have been claimed as being “settled science” for the last 10 or 15 years. Whether it’s right, wrong or indifferent – it IS science and should be treated as such. Meaning, in this case, that the “special treatment ” the paper got is not “science” but gatekeeping and therefore unacceptable in what purports to be a scientific publication.
You keep digging and the hole keeps getting deeper. You really should stop digging. But then, when did you ever listen to me :-)
“In that case, nearly all of climatology fails to class as science “
Oh. Ok then.
“In any case, your view of “science” is skewed. Science is the search for knowledge”
Anyone searching for knowledge is not automatically a scientist. They are a scientist when they follow the scientific method. The scientific method does not include brownie points for effort nor for being brave and saying things the mean old other scientists will disagree with.
“OTOH, I happen to approve of the paper because it is NOT a continuation of the same line of inquiry”
Run wild and free. Who cares if you’re right or wrong children, just run wild and free.
“You keep digging and the hole keeps getting deeper. You really should stop digging. But then, when did you ever listen to me”
You don’t appear to value dissent as much as advertised. Whom should I call regarding a refund?
Sharperoo –
Anyone searching for knowledge is not automatically a scientist.
Anyone NOT searching for knowledge IS NOT a scientist regardless of credentials or what they call themselves. There are MANY of them.
Anyone searching for knowledge is automatically a scientist, although not necessarily a professional or credentialed scientist. There are also a great number of “credentialed, but not educated” people.
Definitions are not always easy, eh? There are a nearly infinite number of ways to clasify people.
They are a scientist when they follow the scientific method.
The scientific method is a recent development. Do you believe Newton was NOT a scientist? Bacon? Lavoisier? Fourier? Kepler? None of them had any concept of “scientific method” – that didn’t come until much later.
OTOH, at least some of climate science has NOT followed the scientific method. By your definition, those parts of climate science are NOT science and the practitioners are NOT scientists. But you give them a pass. There are words to describe this behavior – “inconsistency”, for one.
I’m done here – I can no longer see the bottom of that hole.
Your view of science is wrong.
Science is not done by ‘working hard and producing evidence’. If you work hard, it does not mean that what you produce is science.
Judith Curry
You may have missed this at the time, but on the RealClimate thread featuring the John Fasullo, Kevin Trenberth and Chris O’Dell essay: “Lindzen and Choi Unraveled”, Chris O’Dell himself appeared a bit unraveled by a persistent blogger named H. Tuuri who unraveled the logic of the critique.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/comment-page-2/#comments
O’Dell finally gave up.
I cannot vouch for who ended up coming out on top in this exchange scientifically, but the exchange and Tuuri’s logic is worth reading.
Max
There is a real world out there driven by the laws of physics and a virtual world within academia driven by theories and ideas. Science moves forward when these theories and ideas are examined and modified to match real world observation and in this way science advances society.
I am a Professional Geophysicist and my practice is restricted to real world data and I am forbidden by the code of professional practice to use unproven theory even if it is peer reviewed as the basis for any geophysical evaluation.
The real world data such as oxygen isotope ratios from greenland ice cores shows that for the past 3500 years the Earth has been on a cooling trend with the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and current warm periods all being progressively cooler. The NCDC, GISS, Hadley CRU, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU monthly temperature anomaly datasets all show overall cooling since 2002. The 31 years of NOAA measurement of OLR shows an increase that is nearly a perfect match to the fourth power of the absolute global temperature with absolutely no visible indication of reduction in OLR from the enhanced greenhouse effect demonstrating that no such enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 or any of the other GHG’s named in the Kyoto Accord ever actually existed. The spectral notch from CO2 on Mars Venus and Earth are all virtually identical in amplitude confirming that CO2 as a gas has very limited additional effect beyond the current 390ppmv level of the Earth’s atmosphere. Albedo measuements from project Earth Shine show that it is the change in albedo that matches the reversion from warming to cooling that took place around 1998 with the dramatic increase in global CO2 emissions obviously not having the effect cliamed by the IPCC. Clouds and water vapour contribute well over 90% of the greenhouse effect and humans contribute less than 0.28% of the greenhouse effect, so I find this discussion about proper peer review of theoretical papers completely irrelevant to the topic of climate change when changes to clouds and water vapour have 321 times the effect from humans on the enhanced greenhouse effect which 31 years of satellite measurement incontrovertably demonstrates does not even exist in the real world.
There are essentially two sides to the climate debate; either changes to incoming energy are causing global temperature change or changes to the outgoing energy from the insulating effect of greenhouse gases are causing global temperature changes. As a Professional Geophysicist bound by the same professional practice code of Professional Engineers, I would have no hesitation in writing a geophysical report stating that it is changes to incoming energy that is the primary and dominant driver of global temperature change; but I could lose my license to practice if I claimed that CO2 emissions were providing the driving force for observed global temperature change because this is simply not true in any way.
Academics have the luxury of having debates between the theoretically possible and theoretically impossible without fear of reprimand from licensing bodies; but I have to stick to the facts.
According to AGW, OLR would remain about constant, because the outgoing radiation at CO2 wavelengths, and subsequently H2O wavelengths, would decrease, while the background would increase as the surface warms. This is the whole point. the only way to compensate CO2 effects in the longwave bands is for warming to take place.
For a person claiming to be a scientist you express an astonishing amount of statements without citing any scientific study that sustains your opinions.
I find it interesting that you claim to be a scientist who is “driven by the laws of physics” and “I have to stick to the facts” and subsequently deny the facts by venting myths.
Just as an example : Which scientific study concludes that “humans contribute less than 0.28% of the greenhouse effect” ?
PNAS has always been a dumping ground. Vanity press is a good way to put it. PNAS is where you go when you know you’ll have trouble getting a manuscript into a real journal.
Norm Kalmanovich writes “The entire climate change issue is driven by this single factor yet no one has challenged its verification.”
This is not quite true. I have been saying for some time that the whole concept of radiative forcing, no-feedback climate sensitivity, and feedbacks is a complete load of scientific nonsense. If you search this blog and find names like Tomas Milancovich and Terry Olberg, you will find far better physics supporting this idea. My limited understanding also makes me believe that Gerlich and Terschener are saying precisely the same thing.
The physics of how the greenhouse gas thing is supposed to work according to the proponents of CAGW, simply does not conform to the laws of physics, so far as I can tell.
However, my little degree in physics which I obtained too many years ago does not carry too much weight in these academic discussions.
I should have added names like Bill Kinninmonth, Arthur Rorsch and Chuck Weiss to the list. If Richard Courtney were to read this, I am sure he could add dozens, maybe even hundreds, of names of scientists who agree with you. However, the MSM is not listening, and you have to do a lot of searching to find out what these people are saying.
Jim
Let me rephrase that comment and state that no one has been allowed by the media to publicly challenge its verification. If honest science had not been repressed in the media by the environmentalist lobby and those with their own self serving interests in perpetuating the IPCC conjecture the climate change issue would never have seen the light of day. I applaud all those who have made the effort to bring honest science to the public and I am only an insignificant one of thousands who are so engaged.
If CO2 does have any significant effect on the earth’s temperature, there would be a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature in the Paleo record. Natural events that raised CO2 would raise temperature, with some lag time. Temperature would have to lag CO2.
Where are the Paleo records that consistently show that temperature lags CO2? We have records that consistently show that CO2 lags temperature, but no significant data that shows that temperature lags CO2.
Given the hundreds of millions of years of earth Paleo history, it is not reasonable to assume that no natural event could have raised CO2 without first raising temperature. Earth’s natural systems releases vast amounts of CO2 each year. There must have been many significant CO2 releases in the past not resulting from temperature. For example, any plague that killed of significant potions of earth’s vegetation should have lead to a temperature increase, which should have killed off much of the remaining plant life, if the GHG theory is correct.
So, where are the records showing the when these natural releases of CO2 occurred, that temperature increased followed? We have the records showing that CO2 follows temperature, so why don’t we find them in the reverse, that temperature follows CO2? If the GHG theory is correct, those records should be visible.
In any other branch of science, when it was discovered that CO2 lages temperature in the Paleo records, this would have been a red flag that perhaps the GHG theory had cause and effect reverses. That the current warming is not due to CO2, rather it is a natural recovery from the LIA. That the increase in CO2 , which is only a few percent of the natural production each year, may simply be a result of the warming, consistent with the Paleo records.
The GHG theory has made some significant predictions. The test of the theory is whether these predictions are both unexpected and match observations. How does the theory score?
1. Temperature should increase with increasing CO2. This is not unexpected. The Paleo record shows that when temperatures increase, there will be an increase in CO2. Temperatures have been increasing since the LIA, long before industrialization. No conclusion can be drawn from this.
2. Temperature should increase with increasing CO2. The 1950’s and 2000’s were times of rapid increase in CO2 due to industrialization. However, these we time as which the temperature records were flat. These observations are contrary to the predictions of the GHG theory. This is evidence the theory fails to match observations.
3. Increasing CO2 will lead to an atmospheric “hot spot”. This hot spot has not been observed in spite of years of observations. This is evidence the theory fails to match observations.
4. Increasing CO2 will lead to climate change. This is not unexpected. The longer you observe climate, the more likely you are to observe an extreme events. Over a span of 1 year you are not likely to observe a 1 in 100 year storm. Over a period of 100 years you are likely to observe such a storm. No conclusion can be drawn from this.
5. After the fact adjustments. Time and again, when the predictions of GHG theory has failed to match observations, adjustments have been made. Either to the observations through retroactive changes to past data, or by the addition of new terms such as aerosols. After the fact adjustments to a theory can be used to “prove” any theory correct, even incorrect theories. Adjustments thus are evidence that the original theory is incorrect.
The test of any scientific theory is not in the number of times it has been shown to be right. A stopped clock if right twice a day. The test of any theory lies in the number of times it has been shown to be wrong.
In every other branch of science, when the predictions of a theory do not match observations, then that is strong evidence that the theory is wrong. This argues strongly that Climate Science is not science. It is Astrology.
Like Astrology, Climate Science predicts the future, then counts the number of times it is right as proof. Read your horoscope, it will often be correct. According to the rules of Climate Science, this would prove that Astrology is able to predict the future.
You keep asserting that CO2 has never led temperature, but you are ignoring the last 100 million years when CO2 levels were dropping slowly (about 10ppm per million years) due to weathering and vegetation/soil effects, and this coincided with the decline of temperatures towards the ice ages. Check out Richard Alley’s 2009 AGU lecture for a good paleo summary, and try to see where you disagree with him.
see below, correlation does not show causation. you need to show a lag. so far the only lag observed is that temperature causes co2.
If on the other hand you accept that CO2 drives temperature, and that for the past 100 million years Co2 has been decreasing, that that leads Climate Science into an even more difficult, illogical and unscientific position.
Climate Science holds forth that rising Co2 will lead to disastrous climate change. However, as most of the life on earth has clearly evolved in a time of higher CO2, that is illogical. Increased co2 if anything will be beneficial.
Second, as decreasing co2 leads to decreasing temperature, and the ice ages are a recent event in line with decreasing co2, then the current low levels of co2 are a threat to life on earth, because they make the next ice age more likely, and by and large ice ages are not good for life or human beings. As such it is illogical to argue that we should maintain the current low levels of co2 as compared to the times prior to the ice ages.
Thirdly, as human civilization started about the same time as the end of the last ice age, and in general human civilizations have prospered during times of warming and suffered during times of cooling, it is illogical to argue that warming will harm human society in general. There may well be regional losers, but overall there should be a net gain for human beings.
Given that the main arguments put forward against rising CO2 can shown to be illogical and contrary to the historical evidence, this is further proof the Climate Science is Astrology. It is simply counting the times it is right as proof that it is correct, while ignoring the times that it is wrong, exactly how Astrology works.
True science ignores the number of times a theory is shown to be right as proof of the theory and concentrates on the number of times the theory has been shown to be wrong. That is the difference between Astrology and Science, and the difference between Climate Science and Science.
OK, the CO2 is good argument. Fine, if we agree it is causing warming that is the argument we should be having. Yes, it may have prevented the next ice age which was due in 50000 years. David Archer has a book about that called The Long Thaw. It is a little early to start worrying about that anyway. In Hansen’s 1981 paper he labels the temperature axis range as Mesoszoic for the temperatures a few degrees warmer than now that we would have in 2100. The Mesozoic era was the period of the dinosaurs. So we are headed to pre-human climates in the warm direction. Is that good? That is the debate we should be having.
Jim D
I believe you recommended ferd berple to watch the lecture by Richard B. Alley, given at an AGU meeting entitled:
“Biggest Control Knob – Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
I’ve gone through it.
It’s basically a sales pitch (by an outspoken and very convinced sounding individual) for CO2 being the principal driver of climate (based on paleo-climate studies) and for the premise that a doubling of CO2 would result in 3°C temperature increase (or more).
Intrepretations of reconstructed paleo-climate data are notoriously subjective. If you properly select the period and interpret the data properly, you can prove almost anything you want to. But let’s get back to Alley’s lecture.
It started out with the Vostok curves of CO2 and temperature going back 450,000 years (made famous by Al Gore), where someone asked Alley why the CO2 changes followed the temperature changes by several centuries, if CO2 was supposed to be the driver. Alley skirted around this question without addressing it directly. A closer look at the curves shows, in addition to the CO2/temperature lag that, there were at least three periods where temperature started warming when CO2 was at below-normal level and three where temperature started dropping when CO2 was at above normal level.
Alley made several claims, of which the principal ones are covered below.
Alley claimed Cretaceous temperature average was 37°C (I have seen other estimates that put this at 20°-25°C). At that time atmospheric CO2 is estimated to have been over 1,500 ppmv, due to breakup of Pangea and volcanic mid-ocean ridges emitting massive amounts of CO2 (and SO2).
Alley claimed we could reach this level if all fossil fuels were consumed (this is incorrect; as there are not enough optimistically estimated fossil fuels on Earth to reach even 1,000 ppmv, or 610 ppmv over today’s level, let alone 1,500 ppmv, or 1110 ppmv over today’s level).
Alley did not attempt to explain the long-term temperature decline, which began at the end of the Cretaceous despite very high starting CO2 level, and which played a significant role in ensuing mass extinctions due to extreme cold.
Alley used the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) interval as proof of CO2 as cause for rapid temperature increase estimated at around 6°C, during which period an estimated 6,800 Gigatons of carbon (as CO2 equivalent) were released into the ocean and atmosphere (roughly five times the amount contained in all fossil fuels on Earth today), but he did not attempt to explain why temperatures began to drop again as atmospheric CO2 levels had reached their highest levels.
By the way, the PETM does not provide very convincing support for Alley’s claim of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C upon closer examination. Atmospheric CO2 rose by an estimated factor of around 9 (by 2,400 ppmv), assuming all of the carbon released was CO2, while temperature rose by an estimated 6°C. This would translate into a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of below 2°C, all other things being equal. However, the carbon release is believed to have occurred primarily in the form of methane (from clathrates) rather than CO2.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/could-human-co2-emissions-cause-another-petm
Before being oxidized to CO2, methane has a much higher GH impact than CO2 (around seven times on an equivalent mass basis, or 2.5 times on an equivalent carbon basis), so the estimated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity based on PETM is probably even lower.
At any rate, it appears we have only seen 2,500+ ppm CO2 in the atmosphere quite rarely, except in the very early life of our planet.
So, unless we have another series of massive submarine volcanic eruptions caused by breakup of continents with massive methane release from clathrates, we’ll never get to 1,000 let alone 3,000 ppmv CO2.
Alley makes up for the holes in his science with his enthusiasm and conviction, but I did not come away convinced = NO SALE. Maybe you saw it differently.
Max
Alley actually addressed the temperature leading CO2 in the ice ages as he and everyone believes it does. He jokes about a skeptic’s letter where they say he should be fired because this is true and therefore CO2 can never lead temperature, which he says is a common fallacy.
He goes to great lengths to explain rock weathering as the long-term reduction mechanism for CO2 that is seen through various long periods in the paleo record. This is interrupted by volcanic activity that injects CO2 back into the atmosphere. The lecture explains this whole CO2 cycling in a very complete way.
Jim D
Nice that Alley made a “sale” with you.
Sure, he did explain a lot of the theory on weathering, volcanic eruption, etc., but he did not give an explanation of the dilemma of the lag in the Vostok curves nor the starts of warming at low CO2 levels and starts of cooling at higher CO2 levels.
I’ve gone through some of the other holes in his lecture, and these are specifically related to his claims of paleo-climate evidence of high 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
There were just too many holes in his science and logic to convince me, as I pointed out above.
But I agree that he was enthusiastic and convinced himself.
Max
I prefer to believe what Alley says, as that is his area of work. Are you saying Milankovitch doesn’t explain what you are seeing in the ice core evidence, because I don’t see the point. Milankovitch explains all this very well, being the dominant mechanism for the ice ages. Read the David Archer book to see how that works.
Milankovitch does not explain the transition bifurcation as there is insufficient energy variation ie 0.1% .The temporal coincidence of glacial epochs on the Earth and Mars during the Quaternary and latest Amazonian would suggest a coupled system linking both eg Sagan 1973.
As there is however no preferred periodicity we can suggest that this is indeed random, whether this is indeed a result of pure chance or the problematic issue of intransitive complex systems is one that needs exploration and careful study with the use of some very sophisticated mathematical nonlinear tools .
Are you aware of the Roe 2006 GRL paper that shows how well the rate of change of ice volume correlates with the June 65 N insolation anomaly? These local solar variations near the ice edge, are about 10%.
I am also well aware that their “non linear” model is indded linear and hence thier arguments breakdown eg Zaliapan and Ghil 2010.
Specifically, they argued that a small, normally distributed feedback may lead to large-magnitude, asymmetrically distributed values of the system’s response.
Such a property, if valid, would have serious implications (ie random consequences)
or specifically
the derivative of T with respect to R is very large, and a small
change in the radiation R corresponds to a large change in the
temperature T .
As science is indeed dynamic and it does respond to new information we can observe some new understanding of the underlying constraints and look at the physics of the problems.
As an example Ghil in his Hilber problems posed the question “what can we predict longer then 1 week”
M Crucifix 2008 in a response suggested that we could examine the astronomical forcing for peturbations as far as 50k,The linear geometry were of course unworkable,and by moving to a nonlinear model with better uncertainty geometry eg Madja ( the pullback approach with relaxation oscillators ) M Crucifix 2010 reduced the temporal horizon to 1k for astronomical forcing.
The inability (or unwillingness) of a number of actors to robustly debate the implications of the irreducibilty of the uncertainty of climate sensitivty, in the peer reviewed literature is a signicant constraint on the evolution of the so called science of climatology.The circular reasoning suggests it has reached its limitations,and will not evolve .
Hence we can pose the problem that the irreducuibility of uncertainty of climate sensitivity is indeed evidence that it is irredeucible (with all its random consequences)
Their problem was they didn’t mention “bristlecones”, didn’t put in a Hockey Stick Hairy Scary Graph and failed to conclude humanity was doomed unless a few more $billion is added to AGW research.
If they’d done that, the paper would have sailed through Peer Review in nanoseconds.
that doesn’t show a cause and effect. that is exactly what we would expect if temperatures were declining slowly, that more co2 would be absorbed by the oceans, lowering co2 levels.
to show cause and effect there needs to be a observed lag. so far, the only lag observed s that co2 follows temperature.
Why else do you think the temperature would be declining slowly? The mechanism by which CO2 is naturally removed from the atmosphere over millions of years is known, and this explains the temperature decline.
That is exactly the same reasoning that lead people to believe in witchcraft. Since we can’t think of any other reason that might cause this, it must be witches. Since we can’t think of any other reason temperature is decreasing, it must be Co2.
Again, this is Astrology not Science.
The science and geological observations support this argument. Have you seen an alternative theory that even comes close to holding together? If you don’t think the GHG effect exists, which is implied by your words, I think your cause is a lost one.
Jim D
You ask ferd berple:
If you are referring to the GH theory itself as it relates to H2O and CO2, there is probably not much question that the basics are right, as confirmed by lab experiments.
What has NOT been validated by empirical scientific evidence is the premise that AGW has played the primary role in past warming.
The modern record shows us that there have been three multi-decadal periods of warming, each lasting around 30 years, interspersed with cycles of slight cooling, also of around 30 years. These bear no resemblance with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, which does not have these multi-decadal cycles. The whole record has a slight underlying warming trend.
Statistical analyses of the temperature record conclude that it is a “random walk”, statistically speaking, There is no robust statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature. Where there is no robust statistical correlation, the case for causation is weak or non-existent.
Sure there are “other theories” (the Svensmark cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis being tested at CERN is one, which shows a better long-term correlation with temperature than CO2). Others relate the observed cycles to swings in PDO, ENSO, etc.
But the biggest “competition” to the AGW theory is the great uncertainty regarding the unknown unknown.
IPCC has used the argument that the late 20th century warming can only be explained by the models if they introduce an outside anthropogenic forcing. But this is an “argument from ignorance”.
What is needed here, Jim, is an “argument from evidence”.
And that is still lacking.
Max
The context of my question was the cooling dominating the last 100 million years and its correlation to CO2 decline, because he said that there was no evidence of CO2 leading temperature. I pointed out Alley’s rock weathering as the theory to explain this. If temperature leads CO2, what is the theory that would account for that? There isn’t one.
Regarding details of the recent warming record, solar effects from 1910-1940, and aerosol effects from 1950-75 and after 2000 would seem to account for variations around the general CO2 effect. Some might invoke oceans too. None of these will help reduce the increasing CO2 effects in this century, because they are not persistently increasing like CO2 is.
JimD –
I pointed out Alley’s rock weathering as the theory to explain this. If temperature leads CO2, what is the theory that would account for that? There isn’t one.
Of course there isn’t one. Because nobody has looked for one. The storyline, Jim – if it doesn’t fit the storyline, then it’s not worth investigating. And if one did investigate it, then they’d be just another Lindzen or Spencer – someone to be ignored and denied access to publication. [/sarc]
But you’ve got all the skeptic blogs that would provide support for it, no questions asked, so I don’t see any obstacle to putting it on those, anonymously if they want. This is why I don’t think it exists, otherwise we would have seen a hint of it by now, maybe just in a comment, or maybe I missed it (though I think I’ve seen them all by now.)
JimD –
hmmm – the problem here and now is that when you see something that doesn’t fit the storyline as you know it then you don’t see alternate possible explanations. Note: I’m not saying it’s just you that does this – it’s nearly ALL humans. VERY few of us are open to new ideas that don’t fit our world-view, so we either explain them away – or we don’t even see them. So there could have been 17 different explanations in the last month – and you might not have seen or understood them.
And that’s why I find so many of the consensus explanations both amusing and frustrating. Not because they’re totally wrong, but because they’re so certain even when the holes in the argument are pointed out. Even when there are alternate explanations that fit just as well but are explained away as insignificant or wrong or “there is no other explanation” or …whatever. And that certainty – and the hand waving that goes with it, and the many massive assumptions that buttress it, and yes – the arrogance that assumes that ones science has sufficient answers to reorder the world to ones own vision/worldview — all those and more provide me with sufficient reason to believe that this is a house of cards that will fall apart like a cheap watch at some point in the near future.
I’ve dealt with congenital liars and con artists and scams ever since I was 6 years old – and this whole thing has that same feel to it. And with good reason – Mann, Climategate, gatekeeping on Wiki and in the journals, “hide the decline” – and on and on it goes.
NO – I’m not saying that ALL climate scientists are dishonest or liars. But I AM saying that until y’all learn to say “I don’t know” – I, personally, have no reason to take climate science seriously because ,with a few exceptions, climate scientists don’t act like scientists. And I DO know what scientists are – I worked with them for too long not to know that. And to know when something’s rotten.
Now – you say —
But you’ve got all the skeptic blogs that would provide support for it, no questions asked, so I don’t see any obstacle to putting it on those, anonymously if they want.
And you know better. Putting something – like a solution to the “sensitivity problem” – on a skeptic blog is the kiss of death wrt being taken seriously by climate science. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of promising scientific ideas put on skeptic blogs. How many of them get followed up by anyone outside the skeptic “community”? And why do you think skeptics have either the time or financial resources to do so?
None of these will help reduce the increasing CO2 effects in this century, because they are not persistently increasing like CO2 is.
You assume CO2 effects even when the evidence is that CO2 is rising while temp isn’t. If the temps don’t rise in concert with CO2 for another 5 years, will you question the consensus? Or just continue BAU? How about 10 years – or 20?
Your generation will have to make some choices – will you continue down the road that’s been followed for the last 20 years making the same assumptions and errors, looking for the same unattainable answers, exhibiting the same attitudes that have brought suspicion on your profession?
Or will you step out and do real science – searching for answers wherever the road may take you, regardless of the consensus. Just remember – it was the consensus that kept humans in ignorance wrt astronomy for 2500 years or more – until Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler shed sight on the subject. And even they weren’t “right”.
In science, as in every other human endeavor, the “consensus” is always wrong because the consensus NEVER knows all there is to know. And it’s always a roadblock to the future because it’s ALWAYS more interested in its own status than in the next step along the road to the future that “might” prove it wrong.
Enuff – I had too much time on my hands tonight. Deal with it.
If temperature leads CO2, what is the theory that would account for that? There isn’t one.
“Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” (2003) Caillon et al for example muses on a range of physical explanations for why a positive impulse to temp might lead to CO2 increases. In this paper they suggest positive feedback from the second and subsequent rounds of CO2 increases drives temp higher and higher (presumably from both the temperature response and the GH effect). Regrettably they don’t also muse on what happens at the point of inflection at the max temp.
I think a bit of care with the use of words like “cause”, “leads” and “is correlated” is required here. The biosphere is complex, and causality can likely only ever be established satisfactorily in much simpler subsystems under tight constraints. The rest therefore has to be explained through stochastic modelling. In this context CO2 may be observed to lead or lag Temp but this of itself may tell you little about the impact of anthropogenic CO2.
I was not referring to ice ages where everyone agrees that temperature has to lead because of the orbital/ice-albedo forcing. I refer to the tens of millions of years before that when CO2 was decreasing slowly through rock weathering and natural carbon sequestration and causing the temperature to drop presumably through radiative forcing. The point was, that is a well known example of CO2 leading the change, according to the standard paleo model at least.
I think you might have perhaps misunderstood my point. There are mechanisms that in constrained systems can lead to CO2 changes causing Temp changes and the other way round. What is seen in aggregate in the biosphere will be the outcome of complex interactions between these and other processes, and this is likely state and path dependent.
The thing that worries me about the whole AGW enterprise is that this complexity gets boiled down to relatively deterministic processes.
Instead of arguing about the theory of man made global warming, cannot we wait just 5 years to establish whether the global temperature pattern is cyclic with slight warming of 0.06 deg C per decade?
http://bit.ly/cO94in
It is impossible to accept man made global warming, as the recent 30-year warming is of similar magnitude and duration as the previous one, and in the intervening 30 years there was a slight global cooling.
http://bit.ly/eUXTX2
Girma
You ask us all to wait 5 years.
OK. We have seen “unexplained” 10 years of “lack of warming” of the HadCRUT surface temperature record, despite
a) CO2 rising to record levels and
b) IPCC projections that temperature should rise by 0.2C per decade
In addition, the upper ocean has cooled since the first reliable and comprehensive measurements from ARGO devices were installed in 2003.
IOW our planet has cooled with no explanation. A “travesty”.
We have read earlier assertions that a period of 15 years of lack of warming despite rising CO2 levels would constitute a falsification of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.
So are you telling us that another 5 years of “no warming” of our planet would.directly falsify the “dangerous AGW” premise and hypothesis?
If so, the 5-year wait (4.5 years now) should be worthwhile.
Or do you believe that there might be new “rabbits out of the hat” in the case of continued “no warming”?
Max
Let us give them the 15 years of no warming they asked for to invalidate their theory.
IPCC projections of 0.2 deg C per decade warming has failed: http://bit.ly/fWxIYn
Business as usual warming scenario C of Hansen et al, 1988 has failed: http://bit.ly/iyscaK
Let us validate the remaining Met Office’s projection: From 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
http://bbc.in/iPwWiX
Let us also validate the following:
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
http://bit.ly/kkOf7C
Year=>GMTA (deg C)
1)1998=>0.53 (Maximum)
2) 1999=>0.30
3) 2000=>0.28
4) 2001=>0.41
5) 2002=>0.45
6) 2003=>0.47
7) 2004=>0.44
8) 2005=>0.47
9) 2006=>0.42
10) 2007=>0.40
11) 2008=>0.33
12) 2009=>0.44
13) 2010=>0.47
Only two years left!
I am now getting closer to completely agree with Physicist Hal Lewis statement regarding man made global warming:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). …
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
http://bit.ly/kv4FMn
Sorry
Business as usual warming scenario A of Hansen et al, 1988 has failed: http://bit.ly/iyscaK
Hansen’s Scenario C temperature forecast looks good so far, but I wouldn’t rule out his scenario B forecast for 2020.
Any data / facts to back it up?
Yes, the temperature forecasts and the observed temperature. See Girma’s link
Each scenario was related to certain amount of carbon missions and how temperatures would behave with that. Based upon the current temperature trend sinc Hansen’s projections, none of the scenarios projected have turned out correct.
Venter, Hansen’s Scenario B TEMPERATURE forecasts is on target. If you recall, I said Hansen’s Scenario C temperature forecast looks good so far. So what I said is right.
Correction: Scenario C TEMPERATURE Forecast.
I suggest you educate yourselves on the forecasts and state your case with what Hansen said about his Scenario C.
Hansen’s scenario C predicted what the temperatures would be with rapid curtailment of CO2. Look at the Co2 levels since his prediction till now. Look at the temperature trend. Compare with his scenario C.
Result : Fail
M. carey
Sorry.
They both look lousy. Here’s why:
Hansen’s 1988 study stipulated:
The actual emission growth rate increased from 1.5% in the 1970s and 1980s to 1.7% from 1988 to today, so the actual rate of increase was actually greater than that assumed by Hansen for Scenario A.
Obviously, the CO2 assumptions for Scenarios B and C are way off the mark.
The problem is that Hansen’s Scenario A grossly overestimated the GH warming that would result.
Actual warming turned out to be the same as Hansen’s Scenario C, based on the complete shut down of GHG emissions in 2000 ” such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000”. But, of course, we did not have such a shutdown, did we?
All-in-all it’s a forecast that turned out to be grossly exaggerated (like all of Hansen’s “predictions”).
Max
MAX
As Scenario C of Hansen et al, 1988 is closer to the reality, this scenario could give us the actual climate sensitivity estimate.
Does any one know the sensitivity for Scenario C of Hansen et al?
Or can some one tell me the procedure to calculate climate sensitivity from global mean temperature and CO2 concentration data?
Girma
The 2009 Peterson and Baringer “State of the Climate” blurb you cited is more-or-less a rehash of the IPCC “mainstream” story on AGW with an update beyond AR4 (which was based on data prior to a 2006 cut-off deadline).
This report states rather cautiously:
This is in line with your statement that a 15-year or longer period with no warming despite CO2 levels continuing to increase to record heights would constitute a falsification of the IPCC premise that CO2 is the major driver of our climate.
I do not like to bet on the weather (my grandfather told me that this was an unwise thing to do).
But if I were a betting type, I would bet that:
– the current 10+ year “lack of warming” will continue beyond the 15-year deadline mentioned by P+B.
– the goalposts get moved (or ignored) if/when this happens.
Max
Dr Curry’s concerns about “Pal Review” seem on target to me. All of my papers have been subject to anonymous peer review (double-blind, I think), which seems like the most thorough vetting to me. I also don’t think it is appropriate for the LC paper to receive special “treatment.” If that happened, that is a very bad thing.
However, this does not seem to have affected the outcome. All four reviewers (2 of which were apparently suggested by Linden), concluded unanimously that the paper’s was not of sufficient quality for PNAS nor were its conclusions justified. So even the reviewers suggested by Lindzen did not give the paper a positive review.
While I don’t have the domain expertise to independently judge the paper, it seems pretty clear that it did not seem up to snuff to those who are experts in the field, so I would not feel comfortable citing the paper.
Peer review fails when a paper is rejected (or passed) because of its conclusions.
Popularity is not a measure of the correctness of a conclusion. Darwin would have been very unpopular had he published evolution 200 years earlier. Hitler’s theories proved very popular with a large number of people.
Science should be judged on its methods, not on its conclusions. If the methods are rigorous then the conclusion are worthy of publication, no matter how controversial or unpopular they might be.
I agree with that, of course. However, it doesn’t seem relevant to the review of the LC paper. All 4 reviewers (including two suggested by Linden) said that the paper did not properly justify its conclusions, which is exactly what a review should check. None of them talked about the popularity of the conclusions.
If climate really is as insensitive as LC claims it to be, the climate forcing producing the ice ages must have been huge, much larger than any possible radiative forcing from changes in the Earth’s orbit, axial tilt changes, surface albedo, and greenhouse gases.
So how can we reconcile low CS with the paleo climatic record?
More t the point, how do you reconcile high positive CS with the recent record?
Exactly, the model CS predictions / projections have proven crap with the recent record and shown to be useless. It is on that basis that the AGW crowd is trying to re-engineer whole world economies, affecting millions and spending trillions. So that’s what we need to deal with, not to find some arbitrary reason for CS in ice ages. The sane and practical school of thought that is practical is climate is affected by natural variations, majority of which the climate scientific community have no clue about. So by all means, keep studying he climate and broaden your understanding. But keep off activism and politics and keep off trying to prescribe solutions to non existent AGW scenarios and quit telling the world what to do based upon crap models and poor knowledge.
I think I showed on the “making the lukewarmer case” thread that the current warming is consistent with 3 degC CS. That’s not counting longer term feedbacks.
Um – nobody has shown that yet. Many have claimed it – and you[‘re welcome to join them, but it has yet to be proved and I think you’re mistaken.
Science works on evidence and the most likely explanation, not proof as such. Naturally, you guys will set the bar so high you’ll never accept anything that disturbs your world view.
I don’t think I would use the word ‘naturally’ for anyone who had a genuine sense of scientific curiousity even if we happened to disagree on some issues. Disagreement on political or religious issues wouldn’t matter in the slightest of course. but even scientific disagreements can be constructive too, if most sides are genuinely looking for the best scientific answer to any particular problem.
The best scientific answer to the climate sensitivity question has to involve a study of paleo-climates and that you don’t seem to be interested in the slightest really says it all. Doesn’t it?
Sure–let’s find one that doesn’t have bristlecone pines or Tiljander sediments and isn’t cranked through the Mannomatic hockey stick producer. Oh, wait–there aren’t any…
Spot on, Tom.
Tonto, ball’s in your court. Bring out the studies as requested by Tom.
Yeah, Tom’s right.
Let’s see if they can produce any evidence besides the stuff that we don’t like.
Just a point about these kind of comments:
“ball’s in your court” & “bring your arguments to the table etc”. (so we can then tell you why they’re wrong!)
I’m not sure if you guys have ever had a genuine discussion on a scientific issue but this sort of adversarial approach isn’t the way its done. If both sides of a scientific dispute are genuinely looking for a the best answer there is no need to. Everyone is equally keen to look at all the evidence.
But I would just ask the question: Do you really want to know the correct answer regardless of what your preconceived notions about Al Gore’s motivations may have been? Or are you happy to do whatever you can and what ever it takes to try to discredit the scientific arguments?
Michael, your sentence is a bit too long. Leave out the ‘we don’t like’ and it is fine–and accurate to boot.
“Let’s see if they can produce any evidence besides the stuff that”
Hmmm, doesn’t seem to work .
First understand that ” scientific evidence ” is what it is. tt is evidence. Bring on your evidence first. That’s what Tom me and everyone else or telling you. Your waffling does not count as evidence. Al you have been making are unsubstantiated statements backed by zilch.
tonto –
Science works on evidence and the most likely explanation, not proof as such. Naturally, you guys will set the bar so high you’ll never accept anything that disturbs your world view.
No – science “works” (in your terms) when your science describes the real world. Until then you’re still doing science in search mode. And that IS where climate science is still at – search mode. In historical terms, climate science is still at the post-Aristotelian stage where the “consensus” maintained the Earth-centric universe for 2500 years.
As for “proof”, I’ve stated before that my standards for evidence/proof is based on a lifetime of working with science, scentists and scientific data. And my standards are 1) apparently higher than yours and 2) were likely well-established before you were out of diapers.
The best scientific answer to the climate sensitivity question has to involve a study of paleo-climates and that you don’t seem to be interested in the slightest really says it all. Doesn’t it?
No – the best scientific answer to the climate sensitivity question has to match/explain the atmosphere that we live with NOW – meaning the last several hundred years. Paleo data IS of interest but it is NOT what we currently live with. You apparently missed the idea that CS may be and likely is, both spatially and temporally variable. In which case, the paleo CS would be irrelevant to the present.
In fact, there is evidence in this thread that paleo climate CS is irrelevant to present day cliimate. Can you find it?
Wow, a whole post without the word “denier”!
Did it hurt?
tonto52:
Ca-Ching!
A few points in the L&C review comments. If you see what Lindzen replies, he’s clear about the following points
1.] ” This attachment begins with what we regard as a libelous description of our choice of reviewers. Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS. M.-D. Chou and I have not collaborated in over 5 years, and Chou had absolutely nothing to do with the present manuscript. ”
So right off the the bat the journal starts off on the wrong foot, against their stated policies and with a wrong and potentially description off the reviewers. Not a good start.
2.] When the reviews came in, Lindzen states that he decided to respond to the reviewers eventhough he did not re-submit because
“simply because we found comments on the rejection of our paper on the internet even before receiving your official decision”.
Which reputable or serious journal will allow comments on the rejection of the paper to get into the internet before the rejection was officially communicated to the authors? Certainly not any serious journal with ethics and integrity.
3.] One of the review comments seen was
“If the analysis done by the authors prove to be correct, major scientific and even political implications can be foreseen.”
Is this a reason for rejection?
4.] Another review comment and Lindzen’s response to it is self-explanatory as given below
“The poor state of cloud modeling in GCMs has been amply demonstrated elsewhere and the effect of this on climate sensitivity is well documented and acknowledged. The more significant result here is a claim to have demonstrated an extremely strongly negative, fast process climate feedback in the Tropics. This would be revolutionary, if it bears the test.
While the stated result is dramatic, and a remarkable departure from what analysis of data and theory has so far shown, I am very concerned that further analysis will show that the result is an artifact of the data or analysis procedure. The result comes out of a multi-step statistical process. We don’t really know what kind of phenomena are driving the SST and radiation budget changes, and what fraction of the total variance these changes express, since the data are heavily conditioned prior to analysis. We don’t know the direction of causality – whether dynamically or stochastically driven cloud changes are forcing SST, or whether the clouds are responding to SST change. Analysis of the procedure suggests the former is true, which would make the use of the correlations to infer sensitivity demonstrably wrong, and could also explain why such a large sensitivity of OLR to SST is obtained when these methods are applied.
The inferred sensitivity of longwave emission to SST is enormous, significantly greater than that of a black body at the emission temperature of the tropics. Given that no plausible model or data analysis has ever produced anything close to this, one is inclined to think that the result comes from the methodology and not from physics.”
[Lindzen’s reply] The number of assertions by the reviewer would require another paper to respond to. His or her use of undefined terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘revolutionary’ are relatively meaningless. Since when is a negative feedback that reduces the response by 40% considered enormous, but a positive feedback that is purported to increase the response by 300% is considered plausible? However, it should be clear from the revised paper that there is no ambiguity in our choice of segments. Moreover, our methodology is tested rigorously by a simple model (see Figures 7 and 8). We are confident that all our reported results are reproducible by anyone who wishes to do so.
Lindzen’s reply is pretty clear. For one, accomodating this reviewer’s request would mean a new paper as the amount of information asked for would cross the words limit of PNAS. Secondly, how the hell did earlier papers talking about ” positive ” feedbacks based upon just models with no empirical evidence sail through and become part if IPCC folklore? It is one rule for the goose and one rule for the gander.
5.] This comment by reviewer #2 is even more bizarre
” Without a physical explanation for where these strong negative feedbacks are coming from, and without an acknowledgment that the results are highly uncertain and possibly not applicable at all, I would not publish this paper.”
An this comment by reviewer Reviewer #4 says:
” 1) If the paper were properly revised, it would meet the top 10% category. 2) The climate feedback parameter is of general interest. 3) I answered no, because the exact same data have been used by others to get an opposing answer and I do not see any discussion or evidence as to why one is correct and the other is not.”
[Lindzen’s reply ] The reasons for the opposite answer with the same data, but with different methods, are clearly stated in the revised manuscript.
So reviewer 2 doesn’t want the publication of these results because he has found them wrong. They might be correct but he does not want them out because there is no physical explanation. So get it, observed and measured results are not admissible but models are!!
6.] And this takes the cake from reviewer #4
” Trying to understand the feedback of the Earth-atmosphere system to radiative forcings from observations has been going on for a long time and remains difficult. This paper continues in that vein and, as far as I am concerned, shows that observations and model calculations are different.”
[Lindzen’s reply] This was one of our major aims: namely to show that when data and models are analyzed in the same way, they lead to profoundly different results, and that these differences relate directly to the question of climate sensitivity.
Reviewer #4 further says
” Trenberth et al. (2010) performed a very similar analysis and got the opposite result. Why are the two analyses of the same data so different? That is the big question here.
While the specific comments bring up some issues related to that question, it is clear that this paper provides no insight. Why can the two papers arrive at such divergent answers? I would love to see that question resolved satisfactorily. Both cannot be right. Perhaps, both are wrong.
But to go beyond Trenberth et al. and LC09, this paper has to address that question and argue why Trenberth is wrong and the current analysis is correct. Otherwise, we are left with two completely opposing analyses of a common dataset and no discussion as to why one is correct and the other is not.”
[Reply] Perhaps, our new Figure 7 (the test results with the same generated data in the simple system) summarizes why one is usably correct and the other is generally not.
So you get it here, reviewer # 4 does not like the results because
a.] The observations don’t match don’t match model calculations!! Yes, you read it right. The observations don’t match model calculations and so he can’t accept the observations. He has not determined or proven if the observations are wrong. He has decided per se that if observations don’t match models, observations are wrong. Typical of how climate science is done.
b.] The second reason he gave is that with the same data, Lindzen gets opposite results to Trenberth and so that is not acceptable. Lindzen clearly has explained why he gets the opposite results and why his is right and Trenberth’s is wrong but that does not matter. The reviewer has not proven again that Lindzen’s methods or calculations are wrong. he just does not like something which shows the opposite of Trenberth’s results and shows that Trenberth is wrong, period>
And this gentlemen, is the kind of journal and review process that some people are defending here. The review has shown flaws, bias, blatant disregard for rules, ethics and scientific procedure at every step.
Is this the way a ” high quality ” journal is supposed to behave?
Whatever you may think of Mann’s hockey stick graph, that was just a study of the last 1000 years.
The last glacial period was 20,000 years ago and unfortunately we don’t have bristlecone pines from that long ago. However we do know that the glacial interglacial cycle is approximately 100,000 years and corresponds with eccentricity variations in the Earth’s orbit. It is not at all straightforward to explain why such minor changes in climate forcing from these variations should lead to the large global temperature changes which are required to explain the ice age cycles.
Whatever the true answer might be, the inclusion of a low climate sensitivity as part of it would seem just about impossible.
Tonto has a point. If the net global variation in solar forcing from Milankovich cycles is small, which seems to be widely agreed, then we need some substantial positive feedback to account for the large oscillations in average surface temperatures between glacials and interglacials. Milankovich already considered this problem and came up with some suggestions, which seem sensible and as far as I am aware have not been disproved. However it is, as Tonto writes, not a straightforward issue. More recent workers have taken Milankovich’s ideas a bit further, but his line of research is currently unfashionable, and we may have to wait quite a while for the pendulum to swing back.
Translated, you have no proof or validated answer except your unsupported assertions. And you want to discuss as if your assertions are facts.
” And you want to discuss as if your assertions are facts.” Not at all. I can reference any particular assertion if you are interested to know more. If you think I have mispresented anything please just let me know what it is.
Anyone interested in climate science must be interested in previous climates too. Its difficult to conduct experiments ourselves on the climate. but by looking back at the paleo-climatic record we can see the results of experiments conducted by mother nature.
What’s your opinion on the causes of previous ice ages? Do you feel they are at all relevant to our predicament now?
If you want to discuss paleoclimate, by all means bring your evidence, ask our hostess to open a separate thread and we can gladly discuss that. Let the discussion of Lindzen and Choi’s paper not get sidetracked to paleoclimate.
This bias in the peer-review process in favour of pro-AGW crowd is well documented.
Here are two posts from Dr.Pielke Sr. on that
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/new-article-bias-in-the-peer-review-process-a-cautionary-and-personal-account-by-ross-mckittrick/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/comments-on-the-peer-review-journal-publication-process-and-recommedations-for-improvement/
O’Donnell also documented the kind of ” peer review ” he went through at JOC, courtesy of Eric Steig as the ” anonymous ” reviewer.
It’s ” pass friend ” for the pro-AGW crowd and complete roadblocks for the rest.
The anti-AGW crowd is tarnished by its association with political organizations, such as the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute.
At 4:14 AM, M. Carey had written:
Oh? And the pro-AGW crowd is somehow not tarnished (better to say “flagrantly corrupt”) by virtue of its association with “green energy” corporate interests, carbon trading financial sector brokers, government bureaucrats, and socialist politicians worldwide?
Not to mention, of course, the many “Liberal” fascist think tanks whose malevolent machinations the Cato Institute was set up in hopes of countering?
Y’know, it makes us libertarians thoroughly delighted to realize that our small persuasive efforts cause you fascisti so much suffering. What’s that joke going around? Oh, yeah.
The “Liberal” fascists want their opponents to just shut up!, while those of us who defend individual human rights desire nothing more than that you authoritarians simply keep on talking.
M. Carey,
The AGW promotion crowd is tarnished by its associations at least as much as the skeptics.
To pretend otherwise is to an excercise in folly on your part.
I guess the pro-AGW crowd does not need associations to tarnish itself. It’s proponents do a good job of it themselves.
The pro-AGW crowd isn’t handicapped by laissez-faire ideology.
The AGW promotion crowd is handicapped by apocalyptic group think and a false reliance on models instead of data, and a bizarre beleif that government policy is better.
Yeah, they’re handicapped enough with
Obsession with CO2
Inability to do proper maths or statistics
Inability to store, maintain and archive data
Inability to share data and methods
Inability to do follow the scientific method
Inabillity to understand most things related to climate
Inability to exhibit ethical behaviour
etc. etc. With so many inabilities and disabilities, who needs more handicaps.
Venter
Of course it is.
How else would Mann’s hockey schtick have gotten through?
Max
Max,
Mann’s hockey ‘stick’ I think you may mean. Are you referring to Ljungqvist’s study?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
tonto52
Yeah, tonto, but your argument had more holes than a Swiss cheese.
The 161-year HadCRUT record shows a 2xCO2 sensitivity of around 1.4C if we assume all warming caused by CO2 (or human forcing, which IPCC equates).
If we assume that the many solar studies are right, which show that half of the 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years), then the 2xCO2 CS is 0.7C.
That’s the range which is consistent with current warming, tonto, not 3C.
Max
Max,
1.4 deg Cis very much at the lower end of the calculated range using empirical evidence.
0.7 deg C is just a figment of your imagination.
For a review of various extimates:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Venter, it’s past my bedtime. So I’ll close on this. You can’t deny Hansen’s Scenario C temperature forecast has turned out to be pretty accurate. Yet you take issue with the accuracy of the assumptions and other components of the scenario, believing some are way wrong. If that’s the case, can you explain how some very inaccurate things can resulted in an pretty accurate temperature forecast?
Carey, you have no clue about what you’re talking on this. Your unsupported assertions don’t become facts. Go study Hansen’s scenarios and understand what he said first. Just a clue, CO2 levels are near scenario A and temperatures are below scenario C. Read up first, understand the subject and then talk.
Temperatures are below Scenario C?
Well, maybe just a tiny bit. The observed anomaly rises from about .2 in 1988, the base year for Hansen’s forecast, to .6 in 2010. His Scenario C forecast was a hair over .6
See Figure 3 in http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
So the observed gain in the anomaly over 1988-2010 was .4 (.6 – .2 = .4) and the forecasted gain also was about .4 . That’s a darn good forecast. Even a forecasted gain of .3 or .5 would be pretty good. I wish I could get that kind of accuracy in stock market forecasts.
When you are ready to admit Hansen’s Scenario C temperature forecast is highly accurate for a 12-year forecast, perhaps you will attempt to answer my question about how two(or more) wrongs can make a right. For example, did a highly inaccurate 1988-2010 CO2 forecast and some other highly inaccurate forecast or assumption combine to make an accurate temperature forecast? I would be interested in an explanation (with numbers) of how this could have happened
At this point not a surprise for the 1988 paper, because the climate sensitivity was about 4. Hansen pointed this out in his 1998 paper but as Hansen pointed out, over 20-30 years a climate sensitivity of 2-4 K does a pretty good job.
What are you talking? The scenarios are specifically linked to CO2 output. The temperature and CO2 levels prediction should match if the scenario C is to be valid. Here temperatures at slightly below, but still ” below ” scenario C levels. nd CO2 is near to scenario A levels.
You really don’t know what you are talking about.
It’s simply amazing that they are trying to defend that.
We have not reduced any CO2 emissions (business as usual) and the temperatures are still bellow the scenario with the reduction. This discrepancy will increase with time – how long will they defend it?
There is very little difference btw Hansen’s A, B (and C up to 2000 when it goes flat) and the Mauna Loa CO2 record since. Eli did that calculation when Roger Pielke A and B were bloviating. The scenarios for the other GHGs were not bad either, but a little low. This was compensated by the slightly high climate sensitivity.
Judith, You say:
‘The editor is correct in that this is a potentially important paper.’
‘Looks like potentially important papers by skeptics get “special treatment”…’
‘In the end, it is far more important that controversial papers be published than buried in the publication process. Far better for a flawed paper to be published than for a potentially game changing paper to be buried. LC’s work on this topic needs to be pursued, challenged, and understood.’
The overal force of what you say is that the LC paper may or may not have some worth. Personally, I’m not competent to judge, but I do have to take notice when someone like you, and even the editor of PNAS, allows of the potential for worth, which can be read, in other words, as the possibility of being on the right track.
If that is indeed the case, then why would anyone want to obstruct the publication of the LC paper? Shouldn’t science embrace contributions from those who hold unfashionable views, especially if they are backed up by scientific papers that are aknowledged as possibly being on the right track?
Us folk in the peanut gallery have to form our opinions on what we can derive from semantics as much as anything else, and I parse this as saying all is not well when potentially important work can be obstructed.
Let us not forget that the LC paper was actually published; that some other journal (presumably reputable – I have heard no one suggest it isn’t) thought it of enough value to publish.
In the end, orthodoxy can try its hardest to exclude the heretical, but short of brute force, it can’t eliminate it. So I have this kernel of optimism that truth, whatever it might be, will eventually out. It cannot possibly out if a consensus is never challenged (your word); I struggle to think of a single example of a consensus that wasn’t in the end at least modified, if not completely overthrown.
The issue is this. The topic is an important one, and it is very important to compare models with observations. That said, the paper over interprets its results. It doesn’t make any sense to infer global sensitivity from an analysis of tropical oceans. Etc. The reviews on this paper raise a number of valid points, nearly all of which could be addressed by LC. That is my objective review of the paper, and most of the issues that I had with the first LC paper discussed on the Climateaudit thread still remain in this new version.
Moreover, again as the reviews pointed out, this version did not deal with the criticisms of the earlier one, but simply ignored them
Many interesting events are currently being faced.
Environment Canada has based a hot and dry summer this year on the similar climate model of 25 years ago. Certainly ain’t been happening yet. Still below normal temperatures and wet weather.
The other finding I find interesting is the lack of snow pack melt this year. If just some of the pack remains for next winter, it will make for a more distrusting society in climate science models and a very interesting winter.
After reading up on this a bit here, the reviews, and at Climate Audit, it appears to me there is no basis for PNAS not to publish. Papers don’t have to be proven correct to be published. The vast majority of science is an iterative process, as opposed to a revolutionary process like relativity for example. Therefore, it is not reasonable not to publish this paper. Let it be published and stand or fall on its merits. This is especially true when one considers the garbage published in the name of climate science thus far. Lindzen’s paper probably offers more scientific integrity that the hockey stick paper or Steig’s Antarctic analysis.
Judith Curry writes “The topic is an important one, and it is very important to compare models with observations”
On the face of it, this statement looks like a truism. However, IMHO, it is a travesty against science, and something that Judith should be thoroughly ashamed of. This may take a long piece, for which I apologise, and I will try and explain what I am talking about.
There are many uses of models. Some, mainly in engineering, are used to predict the future. The classic example I have used many times is the wind loading (WL) of structures. When engineers realized they need to know the WL of a structure before they were built, they set about modelling; using wind tunnels. They knew the structure was going to be built, and that they could then measure the WL; which they did. Over the years, using this iterative procedure, they have now produced models which can predict the future. A professioinal engineer signs off on the WL of a new structure, and if the figure is wrong that PE can be sued.
Models are also used in science to design the next experiment. No-one pretends the output of these models predicts the future. The only result that counts is the result of the experiment. I am sure the designers of the CLOUD experiment have made extensive use of modelling, but you wont see much about the models; just the experimental results.
In weather forecasting, people can compare the predictions with results after a few days, and try and improve their models from this information. In my lifetime, models have gone from guessing what might happen tomorrow, to having 5 day forecasts that are sometimes correct.
But models should never be used to predict the future unless there is a definite, reasonable time, when the output of these modes can be compared with actual observed results. This is the fatal and fundamental mistake that has been made by the proponents of CAGW. They have, in effect, claimed that the predicitons of their models is correct, when there is no hope whatsoever, of ever establishing that the predicitons are right. It is this practice that people like Dr. Judith Curry should have thoroughly condemned many, many years ago. But she, and the rest of the scientific community have remained silent. That is what I object to.
The proponents of CAGW have very badly abused the use of models. They have taken non-validated models, and claimed that the outputs of these models can be used to predict the future. Let me repeat again. All true scientists should have condemned this practice many years ago. Instead the learned societies like the American Physical Society, the Royal Society, and the World Meteorological Society, have endorsed this practice, and by so doing, have in effect claimed that the outputs of these non-validated models are correct.
The point I am getting around to is that these predictions should never have been allowed to have any credence in the first place. Years ago, the use of the output of non-validated models should have been condemned by the scientific community as being completely unscientific. But what we see happening now, is Great Britain committing almost certain economic suicide because the government, with it’s election slogan “Vote Blue; Go Green” has brought in a series of policies, based on CAGW being correct, that will completely cripple British industry.
Now we have people like L&C and Roy Spencer, desperately looking for any observed data to show that the output of these models is wrong. This ought to be completely unnecessary, but, in fact, is just one of a number of things we deniers are forced to do, in order to derail the senselssness of CAGW.
So, Judith should not have claimed that we need to compare the output of models with reality. She should have condemned the use of the output of these non-validated models in the first palce. And done so many years ago.
Well said Jim. As a former creator of models in chemical reaction engineering I agree 100%. The goal of my models was to fit experimental results at one scale so that we could intelligently design the next scale reaction system. Repeated several times successfully, one could build a full scale plant.
The key, as you say, was to validate the model at every stage. This is the step the CAGW folks seem to believe is not needed. This is not science, it’s fantasy.
In case you missed it the first time around, check out my earlier post on What can we learn from climate models?
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/
Challenging climate models with observations is essential. Also see my three posts on climate model validation
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/10/the-culture-of-building-confidence-in-climate-models/
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/18/climate-model-verification-and-validation-part-ii/
Models are also used to test our understanding of complex phenomena, and they are very different from models that load test structures.
People who are trying to equate relatively simple load testing with modelling the climate are, understandably, perpetually perplexed.
People who are trying to equate relatively simple load testing with modelling the climate are, understandably, perpetually perplexed.
You apparently don’t have a clue.
1) Load testing isn’t as simple minded as you seem to think.
2) You should check the threads that were indicated above. You’d find that climate models are not validated and are therefore not as trustworthy as you seem to think.
3) The differences between the two types of models are not as great as you apparently think.
1. “relatively” Jim.
2. Depends what you mean by valiated.
3. The difference between science and engineering is far greater than you apparently think.
Your answer is here –
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/#comment-75009
Michael
I agree that you have really missed the point. The point is when developing models it is essential to ensure that the model will mimic observed results. It a model does not do so it is a bad model and needs to be revised.
In the case of GCMs, their predicted results do not match observations, therefore the models have been demonstrated to be wrong. This is really pretty simple when it come to the issue of AGW. If a person is concerned about a dire future due to the result of a current GCM then they are basing their fears upon absolutely nothing vaild.
Jim Cripp
You overstate your argument, unjustly claiming Curry should have unconditionally “condemned the use of the output of these non-validated models”. Please learn more about development of complex system modeling and read her earlier posts. e.gWhat can we learn from climate models?
For such complex systems, each line of code must be individually verified and each equation validated. CFD models for planes and wind turbines are validated in wind tunnels etc. Climate science is more complex and still groping its way. The major problems are more in clouds etc that are not yet well understood or characterized. So we can both learn from climate models and insist that they be massively improved in modeling climate oscillations and solar/cosmic/planetary impacts.
On validation note Curry:
Climate model verification and validation
Climate model verification and validation: Part II
NASA Earth Science Advisory Subcommittee
David L. Hagen writes “You overstate your argument, unjustly claiming Curry should have unconditionally “condemned the use of the output of these non-validated models”. ”
I disagree. I have read everything that Dr, Curry has written on this subject on this blog. I stand to be corrected, but I have never seen a definitive statement from her that climate models have not been validated, because the output of these models has never been compared with observed data. If she has so stated that, then I apologise for not having read what she has written carefully enough.
If we have a series of models whose output has never been compared with observed data, and these models are then used to claim that CAGW is real, then I restate my contention that all true scinetists, including Dr.Curry should condemn this, and state, unequivocally, that there is no basis for CAGW. Dr. Curry has not done this from what I have read of her writings on this blog.
David’s statement is accurate in terms of linking to my statements on climate model validation. The models have been compared exhaustively against observed data. This does not however constitute a systematic, well documented model validation. The absence of a systematic well documented model validation does not imply that there is no basis for AGW.
At 12:30 PM, Dr. Curry writes:
It has to be noted that the “observed data” are drawn from corrupted sources (please refer both to the surfacestations.org project and to the continuing discussion of the C.R.U. correspondents’ concerted efforts to purposefully “enhance” the principal global surface temperature databases in favor of the AGW contention).
Those of us who have been for the past 30 years scrupulously conscious of the preposterous (and I use that word precisely) character of the AGW contention continue to hold that the extraordinary reach of this hypothetical – to explain the gradual global temperature rebounds since about 1850 and the end of the Little Ice Age in no terms other than the effects of anthropogenic atmospheric emissions while “blanking out” the operations of physical processes beyond the scope of human action – requires extraordinary validation.
Thus far, the advocates of the AGW contention have not provided such validation, and have instead invested much “cork-screwing, back-stabbing, and dirty-dealing” in evading that responsibility, instead insisting upon ramming their policy recommendations down other folks’ throats at bayonet-point.
Remember, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
The predication of government policy on the basis of the genuinely un-validated computer simulation models of the AGW cabal is irresponsible in the extreme, and not to be countenanced.
See this link for recent efforts to compare climate models with observations, using primarily satellite data sets
http://www.clivar.org/organization/wgcm/wgcm-14/talks/041010/MetricsPanel.pdf
In response to my observation that AGW alarmists computer simulations “climate model” programs have not been validated sufficiently to be accepted as base for governments’ point-guns-at-people-and-force!-them carbon footprint policies, Dr. Curry writes that:
…we should review a PDF made from the PowerPoint slides used by Veronika Eyring and Peter Gleckler at the WGCM Meeting held by the UK Met Office in Exeter, 4 to 6 October 2010.
Oh, goodie. Not the content of the presentation itself, or that of the Q&A, or of any sort of write-up produced either by the presenters themselves or by someone reporting on the meeting, but the PowerPoint slides.
Heck, we don’t even get to see the presenters’ “Notes” content (if any).
Imagine, reader, that you’re neither a virologist nor an infectious diseases specialist nor, indeed, any kind of clinician experienced in the management of HIV-1 infection at all, and you get directed to a PDF “print-out” of the PowerPoint slides used by a couple of investigators reporting on suggested changes in antiretroviral treatment guidelines presented at the most recent Conference on Retroiruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), or last year’s annual meeting of IDSA (the Infectious Diseases Society of America).
And you get told by an infectious diseases guy: “Here y’go. This ought to explain everything you need to know about why we use standard genotypic resistance testing even in patients who’ve never been on any kind of antiretroviral drugs before.”
Your response is apt to be pretty much: “WTF?”
Er, Dr. Curry? You got a bit of a “fail” here. The reference to which you direct your readers’ browsers seems to imply that validation might be happening “real soon now,” not that it has happened, or even that some robustly reliable method for securing said validation has been explicitly articulated.
You wanna maybe kinda expand a little?
The PDF link I provided summarizes the latest information on the subject.
See my previous posts, which have already been listed several times in this thread, where I expanded on this extensively
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/#more-1339
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/18/climate-model-verification-and-validation-part-ii/
If you want to make claims or judgments about what is or isn’t being done, or what is or isn’t adequate in this regard, a certain amount of homework is required, at the very least reading my previous essays on the subject.
For summary information at a less technical level, see ch 8 of the IPCC AR4 report, which is about 5 years out of date at this point, but it provides the general idea
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
Rich,
Your analogy is a bit off. A much more accurate one would be if the reader was a regular participant on a medical research blog and the host had directed you to a PDF of a recent conference presentation of the latest research.
Your correct response then would pretty much be “Thankyou very much”.
Judith does you a further favour by directing you to the equivalent of an appropriate systematic review – the IPCC.
That would be another “Thankyou”.
Rich, you hyperbolic rhetoric is unhelpful. Your only substantive claim seems to be that basing public policy on modeling results is irresponsible if the models have not been systematically verified. Obviously a great many policy makers disagree with you. They are willing to take what they can get and they clearly have an obligation to consider what is available. It is therefore likely that your standard is unrealistically high. That is, I would argue that while their decisions may be wrong, they are not being irresponsible in making them. There is a genuine policy debate here and every fact counts. The models cannot simply be ignored.
David Woijck writes ” That is, I would argue that while their decisions may be wrong, they are not being irresponsible in making them. ”
On this issue I side with Rich. The statement I quote from you may be correct, but I would fault the scientists who advise the politicians. These scientists are, IMHO, clearly irresponsible when they deliberately give advice to politicians, based on science that is known to be completely inadequate.
curryja writes “The models have been compared exhaustively against observed data”
With respect to the models that estimate radiative forcing, no-feedback climate sensitivity, and feedbacks, there cannot have been any comparisons between the output of the models and observations, since there have not been, and there cannot be, any observations. So with respect to these models, I fail to see how your statement can possibly be correct.
Keep trying Jim.
I have given up. I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to post my comment, and seen that it has been ignored. Dr. Curry is in a difficult position. As she has shown consistently, she is prepared to give space to skeptical comment on CAGW, but there is a limit as to how far she is prepared to support it. Once this limit is reached, she simply backs off and ignores what is happening. I understand completely. But I am still convinced that I am correct.
Even though you made some pretty strong statmeents about what Judith has or hasn’t said, when it’s pointed out to that yuo’ve got it very wrong, you don’t budge one little bit.
And this is perfect demonstration of why Judith’s very principled listen-to-everyone approach is doomed. Her very polite rejoinder to insults are met with dogmatic rejectionism. There are some cast-iron beliefs around AGW that are completely immune to rational suasion.
Do you think that climate model simulations of the 20th century have not been compared with surface and satellite data? Your remark about there being no observations makes no sense.
JIm D writes “Do you think that climate model simulations of the 20th century have not been compared with surface and satellite data? Your remark about there being no observations makes no sense.”
Sorry, Jim, you hne lost me. My remarks on there being no observsations refererred specifically to radiative forcing, no feedback climate sensitivity and feedbacks. None of these entities have been measured, and so far as I am aware, they can never be measured. Are you saying that on this issue I am wrong?
As you saying that deductive reasoning has no place in science?
So, if a model can reproduce the observed global temperature rise, while maintaining a closed radiation budget as CO2 rises, that is somehow not good enough?
You may want to check Herries et al, and reconsider you statement of “no observations” of radiative forcing by well mixed GHGs.
Here is my conspiracy theory.
The people in the IPCC & Hansen knew the actual global temperature would correspond to scenario C. However, for some environmental or political reasons, they claimed with business as usual human carbon dioxide emission, the globe would dangerously warm as shown in scenario A. They assumed their objective would be achieved by about the end of the previous century. However, they were late by a decade and they were caught.
Hansen: http://bit.ly/iyscaK
IPCC: http://bit.ly/cIeBz0
Evidence:
Prediction in 1979=>Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold:
http://bit.ly/lKNUly
NASA Fact Sheet: For example, in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.
http://bit.ly/mCoEGA
Girma, over at skepticalscience.com, Dana looks at the argument Hansen’s projections are too high.
As Dana says, “The argument “Hansen’s projections were too high” is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models, but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4.2°C for 2xCO2, but it’s also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3.4°C for 2xCO2.
Dana goes on to say
“The take-home message should not be “Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;” the correct conclusion is that Hansen’s study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
Hansen also cannot have known that the sun would enter into one of its quietest phases for over a century at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Despite what many on this blog may think, the sun’s variable influence on world climate, isn’t totally ignored by the scientific community.
Possibly his figure for climate sensitivity was a degree too high, but, before coming to any conclusion, we’d really need to see what happens when solar cycle 24, which is about 3 years late, finally picks up in intensity and which it is finally now starting to do.
SC 24 is not about 3 years late! It’s exactly on time. Solar cycles have variable lengths and every SC is on time. Many predicted long SC 23 and even longer SC 24. That means COLD!
One of the most important point from sceptics (scientists) was (and is) that even IF there is some significant influence of CO2 on climate, it is EASILY overwhelmed by natural variations/factors, which we can observe now.
Well I was going to give you a NASA reference for the lateness of SC24 but they are in on the hoax , aren’t they , so they would say that wouldn’t they? :-)
Anyway, I’ll turn to that well known bastion of scientific propriety Wattsupwiththat. What do they have to say?
“Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century”
So that must be right then, musn’t it?
Can you think on your own? You don’t need NASA nor WUWT. Just think. It’s easy.
And don’t forget your tinfoil hat.
I don’t have one and I don’t need one. Absolutely no interest in conspiracies.
So what were you thinking when you claimed that “SC 24 is not about 3 years late! It’s exactly on time” ?
It was about 3 years late only for those who believed that it should have started in 2006.
For nature and those who were not obsessed with CO2, it was on time.
LOL – so true. The Sun’s recent behavior is anomalous from NASA’s model of the Sun’s point of view, but quite normal for itself.
Yes, he cannot have known and did not know a host of things, Yet that did not prevent him from claiming whatever he said was correct and insist on world taking actions based upon his models.
If you don;t know certain things which would affect your output whlel modelling, then your models are wrong. As simple as that.
” If you don’t know certain things which would affect your output when modelling, then your models are wrong. As simple as that”
Well nothing is ever quite that simple. And of course models are never perfect, nor can they predict quasi – random future events . For instance: say I had a model which was good at predicting future demand and supply for oil.
It may be good but the severity of any particular winter couldn’t possibly be included, and in any one particular year, there could be quite a variation between theory and reality. Is the model still worthwhile? Yes of course. Over the course of several years these variations would tend to average out.
With climatic predictions we need to think in decades rather than years so judgement does need to be reserved on the accuracy of the Hansen predictions.
No, we are not talking about life in abstract. We are specifically taking about these models and their output. Either they are right or wrong. Because policy decisions affecting millions and costing trillions are being proposed and many have been taken based on accepting these models as gospel. The entire AGW theory was based upon these models, which have proved crap and so has been the theory.
IHansen also cannot have known that the sun would enter into one of its quietest phases for over a century at the end of the first decade of the 21st century..
Chistyakov 1983 predicted a violation of the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule for cycle 23 and a lower cycle 24.Confirmed this again in 1994.
M. Carey
skepticalscience.com is the master of obfuscation in the world. I don’t read anything they write after they banned me from posting anything.
The observed global mean temperature anomaly corresponds to scenario C of Hansen et al, 1988, Figure 3b.
http://bit.ly/iyscaK
Here is the specification for Scenario C:
Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.
Obviously, based on this result, human emission of CO2 has no effect on global mean temperature.
Girma,
Because skepticalscience.com banned you doesn’t mean Dana’s article there is wrong. If you think it’s wrong, it shouldn’t be hard for you explain why. I don’t think you will be banned here for trying. Here’s the link again:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
To me, one of the main appeals in the LC09 original is the simple algebra underlying thier model. The two main equations:
deltaT = G (deltaQ + F * deltaT )
-> deltaT = deltaT(0) / 1-f where f = G*F, deltaT(0) = +1K
do alot to embody the essence of the climate debate. These equations establish a good ‘jumping-off point’ for both agreement and disagreement between the warmist vs lukewarmist camps. Am I correct to say agreement is deltaQ is +4W energy, and G, plancks function is .25-.32 K/W, leading to a deltaT ~ +1K, when f=0 (no feedback). The disagreement is well contained in ‘f’, this is connected IMO with true null hyp, Ho: deltaT = +1K f=0, Ha: f > .6 deltaT >+2.5K. The simple representation is made more compelling in LC09 by finding empirical measurements of f, through LW and SW outgoing radiation, F = -deltaFlux/deltaSST. I like this style: abstract model feedback, f, tested against empirical feedback measurement, F.
Yes, its only the tropics, yes there appears to be difficulty with instrument callibration and measurment gaps, that aren’t completely handled yet IMO. So yes – this doesn’t deal a final judgement on AGW. (Honestly though, what 10 page paper is going to be that brilliant?) What it should show is that there is an opportunity to make falsifiable statements, related to the source of all our disagreement, f. It is not unusual in my experience to create an argument by building an analysis for a certain segment, the tropics in this case, then completing the argument, through extension to all other cases.
To a proponent of CLimteModels like JC, I realize it may be frustrating for to ask that the climate system be modelled at such a simple level. But I think that it is exactly this kind of approach that I think is refreshing to someone who has been troubled by climate models. The flag ships models seem beyond the possibility of external audit, and consequentially must be relied on out of faith. Work like LC09 on the otherhand is falsifiable from some publicly available data and as such could win over ‘the undecided’ either way it comes out.
Then, I’m all for tearing it apart: finding things like moving the endpoints, assesing sesaonal changes, how do ENSO air/ocean heat exchanges compare to CO2 heat forcings, etc. And I think LC still needs alot of revision in these respects, to become the robust cornerstone counterpoint it beleives itslef to be. As a mere dilletante, I thought this was one of the best papers I’d been exposed to, in terms of pointing out a way to empirically test that abstract, but all important feedback concept (and I think I’m not alone). And I was surprised JC was underwhelmed. I guess my point is that this difference in opinion – in what research looks promising, and what experimentation methods look reliable, might be a clue to producing findings in a style that could sway ‘the undecided’.
Dessler and Lindzen had a debate last year. Dessler is another one who does work with observations, but is pro-AGW. The whole thing is nearly 2 hrs and gets a bit testy, but the introduction by Dessler to the f parameter is very good, and is in the first 15 minutes.
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/10/26/desslerlindzen-debate/
Thanks for reminding us of this link, its a good one and very relevant to this discussion
M. Carey looks more like a joker than a troll, so as a way to elucidate what is wrong in getting the “right results” using dodgy math, I can do worse than point to a well known joke:
I think that the Lindzen and Choi paper is one of the most important papers to be published in climate science in the last few years. I also happen to think that the methodology applied to calculate feedback and climate sensitivity is flawed in several respects, so I can understand a certain level of schizophrenia by PNAS, but that should not have stopped PNAS from publishing such an important paper. All that was required were a few qualifications on the assumptions underlying the analysis.
Why is the paper so important? The collation by the authors of the flux data alone – before any attempt to abstract climate parameters – indicates that all of the atmospheric models in the CMIP4 suite have a massive SW heating deficit (Figure 5 in the paper). Eyeballing and integrating the differences between observed and modeled SW (ignoring the Pinatubo spike) would suggest a SW heating deficit of the order of 10 watt-years/m2 or more over the main heating period in all of the GCMs. To put this into perspective, the total OHC gain between 1970 and 2003 is typically estimated at around 6 watt-years/m2 or 9*10^22 joules. The paper also shows that, to ensure that net radiative imbalance matches heat gain, the models compensate for this massive SW heating deficit with a compensatory excess of GHG heating via LW absorption (OLR anomaly Figure 4.) I defy anyone to produce a credible explanation for this that does NOT involve reducing the sensitivity to CO2.
“I can understand a certain level of schizophrenia by PNAS, but that should not have stopped PNAS from publishing such an important paper. ”
Would you have wanted them to publish a paper that every reviewer they showed it to said it failed to support its conclusions?
There’s nothing wrong with the paper except that it’s garbage. It performs an important function as an object of devotion for psuedoskeptics, but that is no reason for PNAS to damage its reputation and waste ink and paper on publishing nonsense.
Clearly the consensus is that it did ruin the PNAS reputation by not publishing new fresh ideas that were clearly validated. The reviewers were not neutral and had axes to grind with skeptics.
What, all four of them? Including the two that were acceptable to Lindzen?
Please prove that these reviewers were not neutral and had axes to grind. Hard evidence, if you would. You might also like to comment on whether JC has an axe to grind with skeptics — she also seems to think the paper has serious defects.
What it boils down to is that “pal review” is what Lindzen demanded, failed to get, and why he had to give up on PNAS and chose a far less rigorously reviewed journal.
Judy – The PNAS submission policy has changed. The standard submission procedure is Direct Submission – PNAS Submissions.
I have a sense that the main reason for the extra scrutiny for the new Lindzen/Choi paper is embarrassment over Lindzen/Choi 2009, which was accepted by GRL despite egregious flaws that proved embarrassing to the authors themselves. My guess is that editors felt that Lindzen had been given a pass earlier as a means of proving that the even someone as skeptical as he could be published in a prestigious journal, and so the PNAS editors were determined not to make the same mistake.
I’ve read the critiques, and I agree with you that they seem fair. More disconcerting is that they identify many of the same flaws found in LC09, including failure to justify extrapolation from the tropics, inadequate justification for choice of lag times (different for LW and SW), and lack of a rationale for drawing conclusions about long term climate sensitivity in general, and CO2 sensitivity in particular, from short term interactions involving mainly ENSO events, and where the cause/effect relationship between SST changes, clouds, and radiative fluxes could not adequately be determined.
The fair reviews in this case do not mean that PNAS reviews are always unbiased and/or always error/free, but the change in policy does seem to be a step in the right direction.
As someone who has reviewed many submitted papers in my own field, I believe that the new LC paper provides interesting and potentially informative data that would be worth the attention of the scientific public, but that the authors have made a mistake that is almost guaranteed to raise a red flag for reviewers – they have overinterpreted their results, and drawn conclusions not supported by the data. If they had reported their data not as evidence regarding the magnitude of climate sensitivity and the sign of feedbacks, but as an intriguing set of interactions among the reported variables, they might have found their paper easier to publish, although perhaps they might have been forced to settle for a less high-profile journal (but still one on the radar screen rather than the one they eventually settled for).
Fred,
I don’t entirely disagree with you about the flaws, but they seem totally irrelevant to the main thrust of the paper. So how about accepting the challenge I posed in my previous post. How do you produce a credible explanation for the compensating errors in SW heating and LW cooling that does NOT involve reducing the sensitivity to CO2?
Paul – I’m not sure I understand your point about CO2 sensitivity. Figures 4 and 5 (AMIP not CMIP) don’t seem to me to address the “main thrust of the paper” where the flaws reside. TOA flux measurements (ERBE/CERES) and model simulations are both known to be characterized by inaccuracies and fluctuations unrelated to long term forcings, and are a more serious source of error with shorter intervals (e.g., 1992-1998) than multidecadal intervals, so that it’s seldom possible to know where the disparities arise. This may be particularly significant in the tropics, where ENSO and other internal climate fluctuations can dominate, as opposed to a more global perspective.
Fluxes are affected by many factors others than CO2 over short intervals, and in fact, HIRS and ISCCP cloud changes don’t appear to explain some of the more pronounced fluctuations shown in the figures. Positive feedbacks on CO2 forcing can involve interacting SW and LW changes – for example, warming from reduced low tropical cloud cover (a positive feedback), or from declining anthropogenic aerosols (an unrelated phenomenon not necessarily well addressed by the models) would be expected to cause an increase in tropical OLR. I don’t know how well the various disparities can be explained, but all in all, it would not seem possible to draw conclusions about long term global CO2 sensitivity from any of these raw observations.
Max
Here is the gistemp observed data that matches Scenario C of Figure 3b of Hansen et al, 1988
http://bit.ly/jSsqEn
For 2005, here are the 5-year running mean global temperature:
Scenario A => 0.95 deg C
Scenario B => 0.75 deg C
Scenario C => 0.6 deg C
Observed => 0.55 deg C
Credit where credit is due.
The LC paper is unreadable. The equations don’t have mathematical operators. Terrible.
In contrast, most of Hansen’s papers are pleasure to read.
M. Carey
Skeptical Science
A detailed look at Hansen’s 1988 projections
http://bit.ly/l1mf40
Let us check whether Scenario A is “further from reality”
Here is the description of Scenario A in Hansen et al, 1988.
Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.
What is the observed exponential carbon emission growth rate that was forecasted to be 1.5% in Hansen et al., 1988?
The observed carbon emission curve is shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/mBXivS
From the above data, the approximate annual global carbon dioxide emission in G-ton from 1970 to 2007 = 3.67*4.3*e^(0.0164*(year-1970))
As a result, the annual exponential growth rate is 1.64%, a bit higher than the 1.5% assumed by Hansen et al, 1988.
As a result, Michael was correct in stating that Hansen’s projections were “an astounding failure”
The sceptical Science article is just obfuscation.
A long-term forecast that doesn’t get everything exactly right is a failure? NAH ! Unless Michael’s made a forecast back in 1988 that is more accurate than Hansen’s work, he has no business nit picking Hansen’s Scenario A .
The average annual global land-ocean temperature anomaly(base 1951-1980) was -0.27 in 1988, the year Hansen made his forecasts, and 0.63 in 2010, the most recent year for which an annual average is available.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Hansen’s three forecasts of the temperature anomaly for 2010 were: 1.1 for Scenario A, 1.0 for Scenario B, and 0.6 for scenario C. (See Figure 3 in the following link.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
The forecast for Scenario C is on-target, but the Scenario has been criticized for being based on an unrealistically low assumption about future CO2 levels.
The forecasts for Scenarios A and B are higher than the observed temperature anomaly for 2010. The observed increase in the anomaly over the 1988-2010 period was .90 (-0.27 to 0.63 = .90), while the forecasted increases were 1.37 for A and 1.27 for B.
Are forecasts that overstated the observed 12 -year gain in the temperature anomaly by one-third to one-half good forecasts? I think they would be good compared to a forecast of no change in the anomaly over the12 years, and good compared to a forecast that understated the gain by more than one-half or overstated it by more than one-half.
The target year for Hansen’s forecast is 2020. So we shall see how the scenarios turn out in the end.
If business as usual resulted in lower temperatures than the scenario with the drastic reduction in CO2 emissions, there is no need to reduce anything, isn’t there?
What nonsense are you talking Carey. We are ot discussing academically if it matters or not if long term forecasts get everything exactly right or wrong. Hansen and the pro-AGW crowd the word economy changed affecting millions and costing trillions, based upon the forecasts of these models. Forecasts which have abjectly failed. These forecasts are what the foundation upon which the entire AGW theory is based. And they have been proven wrong, just like the the theory.
I’d just say that science is more than just thought. It requires data and references too. On my own, I must admit that I would have just no idea what solar activity was. I do rely on organisations like NASA and NOAA to supply this information.
Its one of my pet gripes that, particularly on blogs such as this, people often come out with complete nonsense. In most instances if they just stopped to look for their own reference, or supporting data, they wouldn’t find any and so would realise that for themselves. without it having to be pointed out to them.
That is all right for pure science as done in academia and science as it used to be done fore. But when science is politicised like what the pro-AGW crowd are doing and policies are being made based on it, it better be 100% correct. Otherwise, it’s a no no. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ” Nothing except man made CO2 is the cause of anomalous rise in recent temperatures and that will have catastrophic effect for the world” is the claim of the pro-AGW scientists. That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary substantiation in terms of evidence that withstands any scrutiny by anyone. Evidence, which, they ave not been able to provide. And from the empirical evidence seen so far, that theory has been literally shot to pieces.
Apart from the fact that the original publication Lindzen and Choi 2009 contained a fundamental error in calculating the feedback response from ERBE results (so fundamental that anyone with a shred of scientific background would have caught it), and that Dr Trenberth spent an entire publication to explain the multitude of flaws and mistakes make in Lindzen and Choi 2009, Lindzen here again shows that he is religious in his belief of negative feedback and his debunked Iris theory, regardless of the scientific evidence against him.
Here are comments from the 4 reviewers of his latest submission :
Reviewer 1 : “The paper is based on three basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global
climate sensitivity”
Reviewer 2 : “I would advise both the author and the journal not to publish this paper as it stands”
Reviewer 3 : “I feel that the major problem with the present paper is that it does not provide a sufficiently clear and systematic response to the criticisms voiced following the publication of the earlier paper by the same authors in GRL,
which led to three detailed papers critiquing those findings.”
Reviewer 4 : “the exact same data have been used by others to get an opposing answer and I do not see any discussion or evidence as to why one is correct and the other is not”
The fact that Lindzen needs to resort to “it has been cooling for the past 10 years” Dr Happer, and co-author of referenced “Iris theory” Dr. Chou, underlines that Lindzen cant find anyone outside his close circle of pals to back up his increasingly unsustainable belief system.
Bad papers receive bad reviews, and that is a fact of life in the peer-review process.
The question here is not about the peer-review process at NAS or any other publication.
The real question here is : Is Lindzen loosing it ?
Rob
You state:
I think you have missed the point here, Rob.
Lindzen is quite knowledgeable on our planet’s climate and what makes it do what it does.
His earlier L+C 2009 paper has received several critiques, primarily related to the data selected by Lindzen. Spencer has also critiqued the calculation method, re-calculating the climate sensitivity using Lindzen’s data and arriving at a slightly higher value.
Linden’s revised paper has addressed some of the issues raised and should be taken seriously until it has been scientifically refuted or falsified (as, for example, Mann’s hockey stick was).
A falsification can only occur if empirical scientific evidence is brought forth, which directly conflicts with measurements presented by Lindzen.
This has obviously not occurred.
Lindzen’s method of calculation can be scientifically refuted if it can be shown that another method gives results that more closely reflect the actually observed physical evidence or there are mathematical errors in the methodology..
This has obviously not occurred yet, either, Rob.
So let’s see what happens over the next few months or years
The past decade has shown no warming despite CO2 increase to record levels.
IPCC models had projected o.2C warming, based on its climate sensitivity of 3.2C.
10 or 12 years is allegedly too short to determine a climate change trend.
So if the recent lack of warming continues for another few years, this will falsify a high climate sensitivity and, in effect, validate Lindzen’s low estimate of climate sensitivuty (reargdless of what the IPCC models might have said).
Max
Max said : Lindzen’s method of calculation can be scientifically refuted if it can be shown that another method gives results that more closely reflect the actually observed physical evidence or there are mathematical errors in the methodology..
This has obviously not occurred yet, either, Rob.
Well, I’m sorry Max, but that obviously DID occur.
Lindzen and Choi 2009 contained a blatent and fundamental calculation error in the feedback parameter which Lindzen himself admits after it was pointed out by Trenberth et al and others.
M. Carey
The skepticalscience.com article you mentioned state:
Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality.
http://bit.ly/l1mf40
Here is the human carbon dioxide emission data in billion tones from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
1970=>15
1980=>19.5
1990=>22.6
2000=>24.7
2010=>30.6
The exponential approximation of this data is shown below:
http://bit.ly/mBXivS
The equation for this approximation is
CO2 emission in G-ton =15.78 * e ^(0.0164*(Year-1970))
For 1970:
15.78
For 1980
15.78*e^(0.0164*(1980-1970)) = 15.78*e^(0.164)=15.78*1.178=18.6
For 1990:
21.9
For 2000:
25.8
For 2010:
30.4
This exponential growth of CO2 emission is a good approximation of the reality.
From these results, exponential growth by 1.64% of CO2 emission is the reality.
Scenario A of Hansen et al, 1988, with exponential growth of CO2 emission of 1.5% is closest to the reality.
The scepticalscience.com article is incorrect.
scepticalscience.com articles are incorrect a lot
Holy Cow, Girma, you forgot about all the other GHG’s in Hansen’s A Scenario. To refresh your memory, see the components of radiative forcing in Hansen’s A and B as explained by McIntyre in Figure 2.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/24/hansen-1988-details-of-forcing-projections/
For CO2 alone, Hansen’s B forecast 389 ppmv in 2010, which is nearly the same as the observed 392 ppmv, as was explained in Dana’s skepticalscience.com article.
Michaels himself in a 2008 article that Scenario B is pretty close to the observed CO2 increase.
“Scenario B, which forecast a slower increase, is pretty close to what has happened, as far as global carbon dioxide emissions go.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9510
In the same article Michaels went on to say “Hansen’s 1988 predictions were flatly wrong about the extent of global warming.” Michaels has a peculiar notion of “flat wrong.”
As I pointed out in a previous post, the observed increase in the global temperature anomaly over the 1988-2010 period was .90 while the forecasted increases in Hansen’s Scenario B was 1.27 for B. If that’s flat wrong, I sure what like to have some some stock price forecast with the same degree of wrongness.
M. carey
Holy Cow, Girma, you forgot about all the other GHG’s in Hansen’s A Scenario
Without any calculation, you are not going to tell me the recent growth rates of greenhouse emission has reduced from that typical of the 1970s and 1980s
There is no evidence of enhanced warming as a result of increase in human CO2 emission. The recent global warming at the end of the previous century was identical to the previous one at the beginning of that century: http://bit.ly/bylFMq
Also, there was slight global cooling in the middle of the previous century.
There was little warming in this century: http://bit.ly/aDni90
Logical fallacy time:
If nature can cause global warming, man can’t.
If nature can cause forrest fires, man can’t.
If nature can freeze water, man can’t.
If nature can cause (fill in the blank), man can’t.
At 10:38 PM on 13 June, M. carey writes:
Well, it’s certainly your logical fallacy. Let’s state the proposition a bit more in accord with factual reality:
If global warming is overwhelmingly caused by factors independent of human action, then any government policies aggressively imposed upon peaceable human beings purported to reduce the alleged “anthropogenic” effect are just plain bloody insane, and not to be countenanced.
There, all fixed for ya.
“If global warming is overwhelmingly caused by factors independent of human action . . .”
That would really be something. Unfortunately, that’s a fantasy, and long known to be so.
Well, I wish warming was “overwhelmingly caused by factors independent of human action.” Then all future generations would have to worry about is depleting fossil fuels and running out of giant veggies to eat when the GHG’s started trending down. But I think you are looking at global warming like it has to be almost entirely a result of one thing or another thing, and I suspect that’s not the case
Nature is sometimes a warming influence, sometimes a cooling influence. Man’s activities are a warming influence. So the possible outcomes are:
1. Nature’s cooling + man’s warming
2. Nature temperature neutral + man’s warming
3. Nature’s warming + man’s warming
I don’t know about 1, but 2 and 3 may be undesirable, especially 3.
At 1:05 AM on 14 June, M. carey expresses his (her?) wish that:
Then congratulations, bunkie. You’re getting your wish. No matter what human beings do to regional and local climate conditions – and that stuff is certainly significant, within their respective scopes – when it comes to the global climate, we haven’t got there yet, and we’re certainly not going to do so by way of CO2 emissions.
I really don’t give a flying fig for what you and your fellow warmistas claim to “suspect” vaguely and without sound factual support might be an anthropogenic cause of planetary climate changes, without hard proof to support your crush-out-industrial-civilization policy recommendations, none of your “precautionary principle” maunderings are going to be received with anything but contempt.
Many, if not most CAGW deniers, are libertarians and other right-wing anti-government ideologues . Getting an ideologue to accept science that conflicts with their ideology is like trying to crack a coconut with a wet noodle.
At 3:24 AM on 14 June, we’ve got M. carey complaining that:
…meaning, we can reliably infer, that most of the CAGW “True Believers” are pro-government “Liberal” fascists whose perverse fantasies of aggressive violence against their peaceable neighbors (in the nominal pursuit of their peculiar “higher goal,” of course) reliably characterizes their ideology.
Yep, when it comes to the institution of civil government – which in these United States is supposed to operate under strict compliance with the rule of law, and strays into criminality when the agents thereof undertake to violate the individual human rights of people in their jurisdictions – I’m among that species of “ideologues.”
And now everybody understands the cadre of “ideologues in which we find M. carey and the rest of the warmistas. Nice, isn’t it?
Before you shut down the world economy and bringing misery to the world you must make sure that human CO2 emission has enhanced the natural global warming. The previous natural global warming was 0.15 deg C per decade. The recent global warming was also 0.15 deg C per decade. Based on the data, there is no evidence for enhanced global warming as a result of human emission of CO2.
And nature can give someone brains but not the ability to think, of which you are a prime example.
M. carey
More “logical fallacy time”
If nature causes most climate change, man can also do so at will.
Even IPCC concedes that a total shutdown of human CO2 emissions in 2000 will not make a significant change in year 2100 global temperature.
Max
M. carey
Holy cow!
You forgot that all other anthropogenic forcing components (GHGs, aerosols, land use changes, surface albedo, etc.) essentially cancel one another out, according to IPCC, so we can use the forcing of CO2 (1.66 W/m^2 since 1750) to replace the total anthropogenic forcing over the same period (1.6 W/m^2).
Hansen was a bit low in his projected rate of CO2 increase (he estimated 1.5%/year, for Scenario A, where the actual after 1988 was 1.75%/year).
But where he was really off was in his projected warming – by a factor of more than 2:1!.
That is what I would call a lousy forecast.
What would you call it?
Max
I would call your “by a factor of more than 2:1” wrong.
The observed temperature anomaly rose from -0.27 in 1988(the year Hansen made his forecast) to 0.63 in 2010, a gain of .90. Hansen’s A scenario forecast 1.1 for 2010, a gain of 1.37, which is about one-half more than the observed gain of .90. Hansen’s B scenario forecast 1.0 for 2010, a gain of 1.27, which is about two-fifths more than the observed gain.
For comparison if the weather service predicted 1 inch of rain tomorrow, and it actually rained one and two-fifth inches or one and one-half inches, I doubt few people would say it was a bad forecast. If it didn’t rain at all tomorrow, the forecast obviously would be bad.
I explained my evaluation of Hansen’s temperature forecasts more thoroughly in a previous post and cited the data sources. I will repeat that information below in case you want to check my work.
The average annual global land-ocean temperature anomaly(base 1951-1980) was -0.27 in 1988, the year Hansen made his forecasts, and 0.63 in 2010, the most recent year for which an annual average is available.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Hansen’s three forecasts of the temperature anomaly for 2010 were: 1.1 for Scenario A, 1.0 for Scenario B, and 0.6 for scenario C. (See Figure 3 in the following link.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
M. carey
In referring to Hansen’s mishapped Scenario A projection you opined:
Please refer to the graph of Hansen’s 1988 forecast and the actual development since then.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2537/5738998081_b3b3e55049_b.jpg
You will see that Hansen had forecast a linear warming trend of 0.32°C per decade, while the actual linear warming rate (HadCRUT) was 0.15°C per decade.
IOW Hansen was off by 2:1 and your statement is “wrong”.
Just the facts.
Max
M. carey
Some advice: you should avoid giving too much credence to “rehashes” by the likes of Gavin Schmidt (trying to salvage Hansen’s horrible forecast in this case).
Schmidt uses the “smoke and mirrors” approach of comparing the actual development with Scenario B (reduced CO2 emissions) rather than with Scenario A (continued exponential increase at rate of 1970s and 1980s, as actually occurred – in fact the rate was exceeded)
The process to follow here, M. carey, is
– read Hansen’s original 1988 paper, checking out in detail his assumptions for scenarios A, B, and C
You will see
– check the Mauna Loa record to see which Hansen scenario came closest to the actually observed change in CO2 level
– check the USEIA data on global CO2 emissions to see which Hansen scenario came closest to the actually observed change in rate of CO2 emission
You will see that the record shows that the annual growth rate actually accelerated: it was 1.75% from 1988 to today, rather than 1.5% as predicted by Hansen for Scenario A.
Once you have confirmed based on the actual data, that scenario A is closest to what actually happened as far as CO2 is concerned:
– check to see how Hansen’s warming projection to 2011 compares with the actually observed warming
You will see that he was off by a factor of 2:1.
Next step:
– figure out why Hansen made such a big mistake
You will see that it is because his forecast was based on a model-derived 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, which is exaggerated by around 2:1.
Unfortunately Hansen is not admitting his mistake (like a good scientist should),, but rather letting Gavin Schmidt write silly rationalizations to “cover up” his mistake, like the one you cited.
Max
“manacker | June 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm
M. carey
Some advice: you should avoid giving too much credence to “rehashes” by the likes of Gavin Schmidt (trying to salvage Hansen’s horrible forecast in this case) … ”
______
My own analysis shows otherwise. I have repeated it in this thread three times, and you have yet to address it. Why?
As I demonstrated, Hansen’s A Scenario for 1988-2010 overstates the rise in the temperature anomaly by about one-half (1.37 instead of the observed rise of .90) and his B Scenario overstates it by about two-fifths.
Those are not bad projections. If you told me today’s forecast for 2 inch of rain was a bad forecast, because it actually rained 2.8 inches or 3 inches, I would say no that’s not a bad forecast. I would say a bad forecast would be no rain today.
If you gave me a tip on a stock, saying you forecast it would increase in value by 140% over one-year, and it actually increased by only 90%, I wouldn’t say that was a bad forecast. I would say the forecast was bad if the stock dropped in value.
The problem may be with your notion of good and bad when it comes to forecast results.
The graph in your link confirms the Hansen forecasted temperature anomalies for 2010 that I used in my analysis. Do you agree that the linked graph you provided shows the anomaly forecast for Scenario A to be 1.1 and the forecast for Scenario B to be 1.0 ?
As I explained previously, the observed annual average temperature anomalies, – 0.27 for 1988(the forecast base year) and 0.63 for 2010, are from the following linked source. Do you agree these are the observed anomalies?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Do you agree that a rise in the observed temperature anomaly from -0.27 in 1988 to 0.63 in 2010 is a gain of .90?
Do you agree that a forecasted temperature anomaly rise from – 0.27 in 1988 to 1.0 in 2010 (Scenario B) is a gain of 1.27, and a rise to 1.1 (Scenario A) is a gain of 1.37?
Do you agree that B’s forecasted gain of 1.27 is about two-fifths more than the observed gain of .90, and A’s forecasted gain of 1.37 is about one-half more?
Do you agree overstatements of two-fifths and one-half are not as large as a 2:1 overstatement.
M. carey
Let me go through your 2 posts.
OK We have discarded the Gavin Schmidt rehash of Hansen’s 1988 forecast.
You refer to “my own analysis”
All I can see in the way of an “analysis” from you is a comparison of spot values in the record. Due to the major annual swings from one year to another, it makes more sense to use the IPCC method for comparing temperature trends, namely the linear rate of change. This shows that Hansen’s Scenario A projected a linear rate of warming of 0.32C per decade. The actual rate of warming (HadCRUT) from 1980 to today was 0.15C per decade, so Hansen was off by 2:1.
Scenario B is a red herring, because it assumes reduced rates of CO2 increase and Scenario C is even less applicable as it assumes no further CO2 (neither of which actually happened)
If you want to run these numbers out from 1980 to today you get:
Hansen “A”: 0.32 * (2010-1980) / 10 = 0.96C (projected warming to today)
HadCRUT: 0.15 * (2010-1980) / 10 = 0.45C (actually observed warming)
“Eyeballing” the graph you get:
Hansen “A”: 1C
HadCRUT: 0.5C
It’s that simple, M. carey.
All the arm-waving and posturing will not change the observed fact that Hansen made an exaggerated forecast.
His forecast of CO2 increase was much closer. In fact, he was a bit too low in his Scenario A forecast. He assumed the rate of increase of the 1970s and 1980s would continue. In actual fact, the rate of increase from 1988 to today was higher than Hansen’s forecast.
So Hansens’ problem was that his models overestimated the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity by around 2:1
Max.
For heaven’s sake, manacker, the starting point for Hansen’s temperature forecasts is 1988, not 1980, and the series he is forecasting is GissTemp not HadCRUT.
The observed temperature for 2010 is not just a “spot value,” it’s the most recent annual average.
The starting point for Hansen’s temperature anomaly forecast is 1988 and the target year is 2020. Obviously, we will not know how Hansen’s forecasts did over this entire 32-year period before 2020. However, can see how his forecast have performed for the 1988-2010 period, simply by comparing the observed change in the anomalies with his forecast as far as 2010.
That’s what I did in my analysis, and as you know I found his forecast A overstated the observed rise in the anomaly by about one-half (1.37 instead of .9) and his B overstated it by about two-fifths(1.27 instead of .9).
In the spirit of “mixing politics and science,” we have learned one thing, for sure. And, the lesson is expensive. Leftist, liberal fascist (approved by the Big Government Education Industrial Machine)—Global Warming Economics, 101: Was $9.98, now just $19.98…!
“Leftist, liberal fascist”
If you think fascists are either liberal or leftist, then I doubt you’ve learned much of anything since your right-wing-fanatic filter was welded into place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism
Teddy –
Go for the REAL stuff –
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308022682&sr=8-1
Socialism is the government ownership and control of the means of production.
Capitalism is the private ownership and control of the means of production.
Fascism, as practiced in Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930s and 40s, is private ownership and government control (through regulation) of the means of production. In current parlance, this is the “third way” so popular among modern progressives.
Under both socialism and fascism, control of the economy by the state is central to all policy decisions. One does it by outright ownership, the other by regulation, ministries and bureaus. The natural progress of both is ever increasing centralization of power in the state.
It should be no surprise that those who consider themselves members of the elite, and believe that as such they should have the power to make decision for others, are attracted to such centralization of power.
Gary M. – You are just wrong. Socialism is government centralized planning and control. A socialist government can be democratic or totalitarian. The government can own the means of production outright, or control the means of production through regulation.
Again, the defining characteristic is centralized planning and control.
Gary – I think you are confusing fascism with corporatism.
Jim,
Please explain your view of the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930s and 40s, if it was not private ownership, and public control of industry (the means of production).
Corporatism can be found in any economic system, I do not think you use the term as it is commonly defined. Corporatism (simplistically defined) is control of the state by corporations. Fascism is the opposite, control of corporations (and other businesses) by the state.
You are correct that in Germany, the MOP was privately owned and controlled by the government. But that situation isn’t limited to fascism, is my point. Socialism can and does display that constellation of attributes. European-style socialism as well as socialist facets of the US governmental-economic system also feature privately owned MOP but heavy-handed government control via regulation.
From Merriam-Webster:
fas·cism
noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
At 10:59 PM on 13 June, stung to the quick by being accurately characterized as a “Liberal” fascist, Robert fumes:
Tsk. Where have you had your head wedged for the past few years, Robert? The 20th Century phenomenon known as fascism has always been a movement of the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (2008) typed your thuggery so accurately that it’s still causing howls of sputtering, incoherent, inarticulate rage all through the National Socialist political conspiracy.
Not being a “right-wing fanatic” myself but rather an advocate of the preservation of individual human rights – something utterly alien to all you warmistas, I know – I’m enjoying the heck out of your suffering.
Do it some more, okay?
Robert,
Thank you for clearing up the question of what drives AGW true believers.
The combination of willful ignorance about history and blind faith in clinging to the social mania of the day, AGW, plus the smarmy trolldom you embrace makes for a perfect bloviating neverwuzzer.
Please keep up the good work. You and yours inspire more to be skeptical of your beliefs daily.
@JC
Judy, could you please comment on the editor’s characterization of William Happer, who they refer to as, (WH). How does he lack the credentials to review the Lindzen/Choi paper? Do you think he is ever asked to review Schmidt or Trenberth?
Happer’s expertise is at best marginally relevant for reviewing the LC paper. The editors complaint about Happer as a reviewer was appropriate. The complaint about Chou did not seem justified to me.
Happer is a renowned physicist. Lindzen’s characterisation of Happer says “Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS.”
Most of the premises of L&C II deal with energy fluctuations and fluxes of TAO energy, radiation etc. Harper is an acknowledged expert in the energy transfer area. So how is he not an at reviewer?
By what crietria then are these people reviewing climate papers
Gavin – Computer specialisist
Jones & Mann : Reviewing mathemtaical and statistical work papers on climate without having formal qualification or having exhibited any knowledge or capability in these fields
Hansen : Astronomer
Eric Steig : Openly admitting he is not string in maths or statistics and yet reviewing O’Donnell’s statistical paper.
Susan Solomon : Chemistry and Atmospheric Chemistry
What’s the criteria here in Climate science to be a specialist, for heaven’s sake? Competence certainly doesn’t seem to be one.
The main criteria for a reviewer would be having published a paper on a relevant topic to the paper under review. Happer’s publications are too far afield to demonstrate any relevant expertise. Happer’s expertise is http://www.princeton.edu/physics/people/faculty/william-happer/
“I am interested in the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei, and in the application of these spin-polarized systems in other areas. Together with Professor Cates, research associates and graduate students at Princeton and collaborators from various medical schools, I have been working on ways to use polarized 3He and 129Xe for magnetic resonance imaging of lungs and perhaps other organs.”
So let’s see, somebody who’s an expert and spent his life’s work on studying the physical phenomenon of energy fluxes and IR radiation issues with gases, the cornerstone of the GHG and AGW theory, is not a qualified reviewer, but a computer nerd and people with no mathematics or statistics qualifications or experience or skills are considered ” expert ” reviewers in climate change, because they ” published “. And yes, inspite of their publications being in the scenario of rotten – poor quality, ethics non-existent, data dodgy, computer codes, maths and statistics abysmal and getting published due to puffball pal reviews, reviewing one another, they are ” published experts ” who are judged capable to be reviewers of climate articles.
Fantastic, this is what ” climate science ” is all about.
And you still think that climate science has a ” communications ” problem. Hell it is a fundamental problem of lack of capability, ethics, scientific methods and generally everything that is supposed to be expected from any ” scientific ” endeavour.
It’s a corrupted discipline parodying at science and putting the name of science to disrepute. The whole field needs a complete clean up.
At 1:35 PM on 13 June, we had Dr. Curry stating that:
…in response to which (at 10:43 PM on 13 June) we have Venter writing:
.
Were it not for the stark proof of a deliberate “cartelization” of established orthodoxy within the climate science realm – of which we had more than sufficient evidence in the e-mail communications of the C.R.U. correspondents exposed in the Climategate “FOIA2009.zip” archive less than two years ago – I would agree with Dr. Curry that accepted peer-reviewed publications in Dr. Happer’s vitae would be the pivotal criterion by which to judge his acceptability as a participant in competent, objective peer review for the Lindzen & Choi paper presently under discussion.
However, the position taken by Venter, combined with our present understanding of the flagrant corruption long prevailing in the academic periodicals and scholarly conferences of professional climate scientists is such that Dr. Curry‘s “main criteria” argument falls fatally afoul of a truly Trenberthian travesty.
The High Priesthood within the “Cargo Cult Science” of CAGW have zero credibility any more. All simulacra of intellectual and moral integrity have been stripped away, and only the botched, the gullible, and the politically corrupt presently succumb to the hoo-rah of this preposterous bogosity.
What I propose instead is a new criterion by which the suitability of a scientific peer reviewer must be judged, and that is fund of knowledge, which is most likely to confer upon the person in question the competence needed to effectively examine the work of investigators and determine whether or not the submitted materials are methodologically sound and provide insights into objective reality which are worthy of being noted in their particular discipline.
Is Dr. Happer competent in terms of his fund of knowledge – familiarity with the literature in climate science, and with current as well as past research in the areas touched upon by the paper being submitted – or is he not?
It’s easy enough to skim Dr. Happer’s curriculum vitae as a short-cut, but that’s both facile and – in the light of Climategate, the 600-pound gorilla rampaging through this figurative room – unacceptable.
Rich, that’s my point. Dr.Curry herself criticised PNAS in this very post for passing substandard work supporting AGW with puffball reviews and giving an unusually tough time to skeptic articles.
This is corruption of peer-review and she herself says so in no unequivocal terms. And this is again a confirmation of what we saw in the climategate mails.
So the system of prior publications in the field as a criteria is useless for climate change as it has been corrupted beyond recognition. The reviewers have to be fro outside the climate science clique, with scientific knowledge ad background in areas like physics, maths and statistics, who can provide objective peer review. The current climate science clique need to be completely excluded from anything to do with reviewing any paper as they are not to be trusted.
Venter, I agree with the general gist of your point. However, the entire climate field, broadly defined, isn’t a clique, although the IPCC insiders might be characterized as a clique. People from outside the field (e.g. physics, math, statistics) can provide valuable perspectives and analyses. However unless someone is steeped in the relevant literature and preferably having published a relevant paper, they won’t provide very useful reviews. In addition to basic maths and physics (and chemistry), the field of climate science is very much about the phenomenology of earth, ocean and atmospheric processes. Without some sense of the phenomenology including the climatology and extreme values, and the previous literature that contributes to understanding them, a review from a physicist or mathematician isn’t going to be very helpful unless a fundamental math or physics error is made.
Dear Dr.Curry,
I agree that the IPCC insiders form a clique and not the entire climate science field. That was a mistake from me.
if you look at papers of MBH 98, Mann et. al. 2008, Steig et. al. 2009, Wahl and Amman, Schmidt 09, Briffa’s Bristlecones paper etc., the errors were purely statistics and maths and data archiving, management and truncation. One did not need to understand phenomenology to detect that. A reviewer competent in maths and statistics would have caught it. But puffball reviews from pals helped these papers to pass through.
Just recently, in the same L&C II discussion at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre made the following comments
” Mann et al 2008 – a PNAS paper – mercilessly smooths series prior to regression, something adversely commented on here. I wonder why PNAS reviewers objected to it in Lindzen’s case, but not in Mann’s.”
” I was a reviewer of Wahl and Ammann and published my review online here. I had an adverse interest but, according to the Climategate documents, my identity as a reviewer was disclosed to them. However, whereas the Journal of Climate editor required us to make major revisions in response to Steig (without disclosing his adverse interest), Schneider totally ignored my review comments – which I tried to be objective about – and terminated me as a reviewer. Worse, as a reviewer, I asked Wahl and Ammann to disclose verification r2 and CE statistics – a point that was in controversy – and where I knew that they had got precisely the same results as us, because their code matched ours – something that they failed to disclose. They refused and Schneider refused to make them. Shameful. Worse, they told Schneider that their parallel submission to GRL had showed us up – without disclosing to Schneider that the GRL submission had been rejected. Their conduct was totally repugnant and, as a result, I filed an academic misconduct complaint – the only time that I’ve done so. Only then did they grudgingly disclose (in an appendix) the statistics that confirmed our findings. UCAR failed to investigate the complaint according to their procedures, but I didn’t pursue the matter at the time. Perhaps I should reconsider.
Their abstract was very deceptive. In fact, they confirmed our findings that the MBH reconstruction did not possess the advertised statistical ‘skill” and robustness.”
These are just a couple of examples. A good mathematician as a reviewer would not have allowed Steig 09 to be published, that too in a journal like science. A good statistician as a reviewer would not have allowed any of Mann’s papers or the Wahl & Amman travesty of a paper to be published. Steve McIntyre is possibly one of the best statisticians you could get today in the world, with knowledge of the climate field also. Look at how he was treated and is being treated.
A lot of the Climate papers, especially related to temperatures are basically statistical and mathematical torturing of data to fit a preconceived theory. That is very well known. Pal review from a reviewer board chosen because of the ” prior publications ” mantra, resulted in a lot of these poor papers being published.
So in reality, the criteria of ” prior publications ” has not resulted in good papers or good science in climate science field, in my opinion. So it’s time to have a relook at that.
Until climate science basically puts competence in the relevant hard sciences field first, quality of publications is not going to improve. While I agree with the view that the clique of IPCC insiders have caused this problem, unfortunately the whole discipline is tainted because of that and good scientists like you are also facing a tough time.
@JC
I have to disagree with you.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” he said in the statement. “Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”-Dr. Happer
I would say in fact Happer is more qualified than most to review the Lindzen paper. I think one of the important points of the Lindzen paper is that more radiation is escaping into space than is thought and Happer is an expert on this issue.
True, true…
“My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. The views I express today are my own, and not official views of my main employer, Princeton University, nor of any other organization…” (Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives, May 20, 2010)
I see it too. Maybe you have a point.
I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change.
DaveR,
What does the Director of Energy Research have to do with the actual research funded by the DOE? Not a whole lot.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m3if4tpUVzcC&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false
I also wouldn’t call him an expert on high energy and nuclear physics, materials science, magnetic confinement fusion and the human genome project.
Having expertise in spectroscopy does not make you an expert in climate science, or even an expert in an application of spectroscopy like radiative transfer and remote sensing in planetary atmospheres. Of course, this paper deals with aspects of the climate system not limited to the emission/absorption/scattering of EM radiation, involving the relationships (if any) between short-term tropical SSTs, OLR, and long-term climate sensitivity. Given that, I would say Happer is far less qualified to review the paper than every referee suggested by PNAS.
No doubt Dr. Happer has an impressive pedigree in his own field, but LC2011 is outside his field. The two may be somewhat related, but they’re certainly not the same.
Honestly, I can’t imagine anyone in the physics department at my University would consider themselves a competent reviewer of something like LC2011 if they didn’t actively research/publish in the field of climate science, spectroscopist or not.
Eli
Just exactly what qualification then do you think makes one an “expert” at climate science. Is it computer modelling? Astronomy? A poor grasp of statistics? Or is all that is required a long string of dodgy publications reviewed by your mates?
Happers expertise is in a field more closely related to the subject of LC2011 than most of the reviewers suggested, not to mention which his undoubted eminence and breadth of knowledge of physics would also rank his critical opinion head and shoulders over the likes of Schmidt and Trenberth (who is also a poor choice due to his obvious bias).
Peter,
Well, I believe I mentioned active research/publication in the field of climate science. That’d be particularly important as a reviewer. Just as Dr. Happer probably wouldn’t want a physicist who specializes in geodetics reviewing one of his optical pumping papers.
Happer has nowhere near as much relevant expertise as Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, or Patrick Minnis since they’ve all researched and regularly published on the very topics discussed in LC2011. Susan Solomon and James G. Anderson are somewhat arguable, but I can guarantee that they have a better handle of atmospheric radiative transfer and remote sensing, and processes that contribute to long-term climate sensitivity than a spectroscopist who specializes in spin-polarized atoms and nuclei and their use in MRIs. Having “undoubted eminence and breadth of knowledge in physics” doesn’t make you more knowledgeable than those who work and live in a different field.
Bias is a completely separate issue from expertise, and something I’m not particularly interested in discussing. Although based on his firstthings article, it seems pretty clear that Dr. Happer has a particular axe to grind with regard to CO2 and AGW that isn’t entirely scientific.
Jay said I think one of the important points of the Lindzen paper is that more radiation is escaping into space than is thought
This “more radiation” that you report here was the result of a high-school level calculation mistake in Lindzen and Choi 2009. That’s one of the reasons why it was scientifically debunked as hard as it was.
Lindzen even admitted these mistakes, onlt to goes right on to the next one in this paper to PNAS : he re-introduces the old Lindzen and Chou 2001 (Iris theory) paper to ‘explain’ how he still can sustain his debunked conclusions where other scientists find positive feedback in the same data. Then Lindzen appoints co-author Chou as the reviewer.
If that’s not pal-review by definition then I don’t know what is.
As for Happer, I agree with Judith :
If Happer is a qualified expert then you should be able to point out at least one paper where Happer explains to which extent “radiation is escaping into space” has been misunderstood by other climate scientists in the field. A bit of scientific explanation by Happer for his opinions would help BEFORE he would send letters claiming that US Congress is being “deceived” about Global Warming.
–>A bit of scientific explanation by Happer for his opinions would help BEFORE he would send letters claiming that US Congress is being “deceived” about Global Warming.
Like… what do the Vostok ice cores show about the past 650,000 years? For example, the current levels of atmospheric CO2 is at about the lowest level in the geological history of the Earth. Will Happer’s testimony in the Senate established that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
According to Dr. Spencer the null hypothesis of global warming theory—that all observed climate change is natural—has never been rejected. Like Spencer, Dr. Happer also believes in the scientific approach to knowledge; and, he probably also believes that the EPA’s politics of fear is a symptom of the moral bankruptcy that is leading to the fall of Western civilization.
“Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing. Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800’s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years. Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate.” ~Dr. Happer
As a further note on the history of the new Lindzen/Choi paper, it was submitted to JGR (Journal of Geophysical Research) last year, and rejected by that journal. The submission to PNAS then afforded Lindzen a greater opportunity to choose his own reviewers than is standard in the published literature. With the failure at PNAS, the paper has still been published, in an obscure climate journal, but it is easily accessed via the web. If the question is whether the public is being denied an opportunity to read the paper, the answer is that it is not – in fact, there is almost no means of suppressing public communication of material on a contentious issue when the expressed view is favored by some members of the public. Rather, rejection by JGR and subsequently by PNAS, combined with the unfavorable reviews, has altered perceptions of the paper’s merit. Ultimately, scientifically knowledgeable members of the public will still be able to make their own judgments. As I stated earlier, my own assessment is that the paper describes interesting observations, and would have met with less resistance to publication if it had not overinterpreted the data to draw conclusions about climate sensitivity that were not supported by the evidence.
Fred Moolten, 6/13/11, 5:07 pm, Lindzen and Choi
Your assessment is that the [Lindzen and Choi Part II] paper describes interesting observations, and would have met with less resistance to publication if it had not overinterpreted the data to draw conclusions about climate sensitivity that were not supported by the evidence. I think you have it reversed.
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Richard Horton, MD, Editor, The Lancet, 2000.
In Part I at least, Lindzen and Choi provided evidence of this unsettling and unsatisfactory observation by IPCC about its climate sensitivity results:
In spite of this undeniable progress, the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain, and this uncertainty was cited as one of the key factors explaining the spread in model simulations of future climate for a given emission scenario. This cannot be regarded as a surprise: that the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to changing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must depend strongly on cloud feedbacks can be illustrated on the simplest theoretical grounds, using data that have been available for a long time. Bold added, 4AR, ¶1.5.2, p. 114.
Lindzen and Choi had trouble getting published not because they drew conclusions that disagreed with evidence, but that they presented evidence that disagree with dogma.
I saw this on Tom Nelson’s blog just now:
Warmist Chris Mooney claims that Kerry Emanuel can “show on the back of an envelope” how trace amounts of carbon dioxide can dangerously overheat the planet
As Emanuel explained in his written testimony, today’s MIT atmospheric-sciences students can do “hand calculations or use simple models” to show why global warming is a serious concern. Such calculations show that the planet will warm somewhere between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit if we allow carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to double. It’s a result, Emanuel observed, that scientists have understood at least since 1979, when the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released the first in what are now shelves of studies of the subject. You don’t get an atmospheric-sciences degree at MIT–with a climate focus, anyway–if you can’t show on the back of an envelope what much of Congress now calls into question.
1. Nullius in Verba Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Chris,
Can you show us this “back of an envelope” calculation, please?
Thanks.
2. Chris Mooney Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Nullius, this is a warning. Your comments are verging on hectoring at this point.
3. Nullius in Verba Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Noted.
+++++++++++++++
I went there and asked Chris to explain the “heckoring” and pointed out what another MIT scientist (Lindzen) has to say and was banned.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/13/my-new-feature-story-in-the-american-prospect-the-reality-gap/
Now Eli, not being Lubos, would think it fine if Bill Happer reviewed a bunch of string theory papers, which is the issue here.
Responding to the post of cba of June 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm.
I am hoping for a reply to this response of mine, so I am posting the body of it here as a straight response to the main thread.
I refer to Dessler 2010, Science 330: 1523-1527.
As I understand things, for the present climate régime, there are two well-recognized destabilizing contributory factors in the earth’s energy transport process, water vapour radiative absorption and ice albedo. Two well-recognized stabilizing contributory factors are the Planck response and the lapse rate response. It seems agreed by the AOGCM people that of these four, the destabilizing factors outweigh the stabilizing ones. There remains room for argument about the cloud effects.
It seems to me that if the cloud effects were destabilizing, then, because of the combined effects, the system would be dynamically unstable overall, and we would see a transition to a new dynamical régime, not warmer than 5700K, more or less explosively, or as they like to say, a runaway global warming. Dessler as cited above tells me he thinks the cloud effects are indeed destabilizing. I suppose this means he thinks we are indeed looking at such transition.
If we were in such a transition, the fundamental premise of the IPCC “forcings and feedbacks” formalism would be violated and the back-of-an-envelope ‘reasoning’ would be, in its own frame of thinking, nonsense. A reasonable person who believed that we were in such a transition would not feel tempted to use the formalism. But Dessler starts the two-hour debate with Lindzen by expounding the formalism.
It seems to me that if this runaway story were really so, then 1998 would have been followed by a distinct further rise in temperature, beyond the 1998 value. That seems not to have happened. So I think Dessler must be mistaken.
That is why I don’t think that the AOGCMs can be trusted. Can you put me right on this? Christopher Game
Christopher – A climate feedback factor (f), which if positive might be the result of water vapor or ice/albedo changes (and possibly changes in clouds as well), will amplify a response to a forcing, F, that is otherwise determined by the Planck response (the increase in heat radiated from a body in response to a temperature increase, as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation). If the absence of feedbacks of this type, the response is given by the “no-feedback” climate sensitivity parameter, λo, so that ΔT = λoF. Note that the temperature response, while referred to as “no-feedback”, is actually limited by the Planck response, which is in fact a strong negative feedback, although conventionally not termed a feedback in many descriptions of climate feedback. This is a source of much confusion, because the Planck Response is correctly included in the calculations but not described as a feedback – it probably should be, in which case “no-feedback” would become “Planck-only feedback.”
In the presence of feedbacks beyond the Planck Response, the temperature response is altered, so that ΔT = , λoF/1 – f. For 0<f<1, feedback is positive (the temperature response is amplified). For f<0, the feedback is negative (the temperature response is diminished). A destabilized, and potentially "runaway" climate is only possible if the value of f reaches 1. This is considered extremely unlikely for any climate scenario reasonably likely in the foreseeable future. The current sum of positive and negative feedbacks (including the negative lapse rate feedback) appears to be positive.
The reason that even amplifying feedbacks (0<f<1) are not destabilizing resides in the dominance of the Planck Response, which tends to restore equilibrium not only from initial forcings but also in response to positive feedbacks. For this reason, even a positive forcing (e.g., an increase in water vapor in response to CO2-mediated warming) will be limited in its ultimate response. This can be thought of as the sum of a converging Taylor Series, in which a forcing leads to an initial response, f, in proportion to the forcing, that is less than the response to the forcing itself. This then results in a response to the response also in proportion to f, and a response to the response to the response, and so on, so that the each iteration results in a diminishing effect, given by F(1 + f + f^2 + f^3 + …f^n), which sums to F/(1 – f). It is the Planck Response that keeps f<1.
In theory, a very large increase in solar irradiance would be capable to driving feedbacks so strongly that the value of f would be driven toward 1 and beyond, and a runaway climate would result. Current solar irradiance is comfortably below that level. Based on current estimates of greenhouse gas mediated forcings, there does not appear to be any level of CO2 that would be likely to lead to a runaway, although very high CO2 levels could drive temperature to very high levels. Note, though, that a runaway climate is not synonymous with a "tipping point", which simply refers to an abrupt climate change in response to a small perturbation.
Christopher – A climate feedback factor (f), which if positive might be the result of water vapor or ice/albedo changes (and possibly changes in clouds as well), will amplify a response to a forcing, F, that is otherwise determined by the Planck response (the increase in heat radiated from a body in response to a temperature increase, as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation). If the absence of feedbacks of this type, the response is given by the “no-feedback” climate sensitivity parameter, λo, so that ΔT = λoF. Note that the temperature response, while referred to as “no-feedback”, is actually limited by the Planck response, which is in fact a strong negative feedback, although conventionally not termed a feedback in many descriptions of climate feedback. This is a source of much confusion, because the Planck Response is correctly included in the calculations but not described as a feedback – it probably should be, in which case “no-feedback” would become “Planck-only feedback.”
In the presence of feedbacks beyond the Planck Response, the temperature response is altered, so that ΔT = , λoF/1 – f. For 0<f<1, feedback is positive (the temperature response is amplified). For f<0, the feedback is negative (the temperature response is diminished). A destabilized, and potentially "runaway" climate is only possible if the value of f reaches 1. This is considered extremely unlikely for any climate scenario reasonably likely in the foreseeable future. The current sum of positive and negative feedbacks (including the negative lapse rate feedback) appears to be positive.
The reason that even amplifying feedbacks (0<f<1) are not destabilizing resides in the dominance of the Planck Response, which tends to restore equilibrium not only from initial forcings but also in response to positive feedbacks – i.e., anything that causes the Earth to warm will cause it to shed more heat. For this reason, even a positive forcing (e.g., an increase in water vapor in response to CO2-mediated warming) will be limited in its ultimate response. This can be thought of as the sum of a converging Taylor Series, in which a forcing leads to an initial response, f, in proportion to the forcing, that is less than the response to the forcing itself. This then results in a response to the response also in proportion to f, and a response to the response to the response, and so on, so that the each iteration results in a diminishing effect, given by F(1 + f + f^2 + f^3 + …f^n), which sums to F(1 – f). It is the Planck Response that keeps f<1.
In theory, a very large increase in solar irradiance would be capable to driving feedbacks so strongly that the value of f would be driven toward 1 and beyond, and a runaway climate would result. Current solar irradiance is comfortably below that level. Based on current estimates of greenhouse gas mediated forcings, there does not appear to be any level of CO2 that would be likely to lead to a runaway, although very high CO2 levels could drive temperature to very high levels. Note, though, that a runaway climate is not synonymous with a "tipping point", which simply refers to an abrupt climate change in response to a small perturbation.
In the next-to-last paragraph above, the phrase “which sums to F(1 – f)” should read “which sums to F/(1 – f)”. Earlier in the paragraph, “an increase in water vapor in response to CO2-mediated warming” should be described as a “positive feedback”, not a “positive forcing”.
Hi Fred,
I find it somewhat ironic that, having argued earlier that Lindzen could not derive ECS from short-term response – something I agree with, but which is only a valid argument if one rejects the assumption of a linear feedback equation, you then respond to Christopher’s question by offering an answer that ONLY applies to a linear feedback model.
PS I am still awaiting an answer to my previous challenge. Suggesting that “…it’s seldom possible to know where the disparities arise” does not cut it. A number of reputable authors (and the IPCC itself in AR4 Chapter 9) have found no difficulty at all in interpreting the SW data unambiguously. Try Wielicki 2002, Hatzianastassiou et al 2004 or see this graph http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_SWup_toa.gif and the write-up on the ISCCP site. There is little question that there was significant albedo reduction between 1983 and 1999, apart from the Pinatubo spike, and that a primary contributing factor was the decrease in cloudiness in the subtropical and tropical latitudes. Lindzen’s comparison plots show that the atmospheric models miss a significant chunk of this SW heating (Figure 5) and compensate by suppressing outgoing LW emission relative to observation (Figure 4 plus the analysis itself). The magnitude of this error is enormous and has serious implications for attribution. I can see no ambiguity so far in any of this. So please explain how you fix this without reducing climate sensitivity to CO2. If you wish to argue that one can increase the temperature-dependent albedo feedback, then go ahead, but follow through on the implications for matching SW, LW, temperature and planetary energy gain.
Paul
“Lindzen could not derive ECS from short-term response – something I agree with, but which is only a valid argument if one rejects the assumption of a linear feedback equation”
That’s not correct, Paul. Lindzen’s analysis is flawed for a multiplicity of reasons, cited by the reviewers, by me, and others, and does not require non-linearity as a criterion. I would ask you to revisit the reviewer comments as well as those by others in the thread.
I believe I’ve already responded earlier to your other point, but if you don’t think so, you should explain why any of the observations require us to conclude that CO2 sensitivity is low. I don’t believe it suffices to say that there was a SW disparity between models and instrument data for a number of years (mainly 1992-1998). Also, as I mentioned, SW heating can be a positive feedback mechanism for CO2 forcing, although in certain years, it may have reflected a reduction in anthropogenic aerosols not fully incorporated into the models.
Regarding LW emission, Figure 4 shows the models and recorded data to match fairly well outside of the 1998 El Nino.
CO2 sensitivity estimates are derived from a very large array of data independent of the information in this paper. There is no reasonable way of deriving it from a simple comparison over a short interval of CO2 trends with TOA flux measurements, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned earlier, including the operation of multiple other climate phenomena within such an interval.
replying to Fred Moolten’s posts of Jun 13, 2011 at 9:10 pm and at 11:09 pm.
Thank you Fred Moolten for this helpful response.
As for terminology, I recall Andy Lacis (I think recently in this blog) saying that the ‘Planck response’ can rightly be called a ‘feedback’, in agreement with your comment. This seems right to me.
It seems to me that the ‘Planck response’ serves two functions. One is to provide a fixed reference calculated for the ‘Planck-only feedback’ response that defines for us the value of ΔTo = λoF in an extension of the notation of your post, when the non-Planck responses have not yet been switched on and are thus not affecting the temperature. The other is to provide the temperature-dependent Planck response that follows when the non-Planck responses are switched on and have their effects on temperature. You are saying that it is the latter which is ultimately stabilizing. Christopher Game
Whether Planck response is a feedback or not depends on the choice of the process we consider.
The most common approach is to study what a specific forcing does to the temperature (SF -> T). This implies that there must be a non-feedback response of surface temperature to the postulated specific forcing. That is true only, when the Planck response is taken into account in the non-feedback process. Without Planck response we would have continuous warming without any limit. Thus no resulting temperature could be defined. In this picture Planck response is part of the non-feedback process, not a feedback.
The other possibility is to study what happens to the energy balance of the Earth system as a consequence of the new specific forcing. In this case the input parameter is the same as in the previous case, but the output parameter is not surface temperature but net energy flux at TOA (SF -> TOAF). In this case Planck response is part of the feedback.
Both answers are correct, but to two different questions. Planck response is is a feedback and its a non-feedback part of the basic process. Which one applies, depends on the details of well posed questions. As long as the question is vague, the answer is not unique.
Thank you Pekka Pirila for your post of Jun 15, 2011 at 3:17 am.
I think my comment of June 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm is in substantial agreement with your post of 3:17 am, with slightly different wording.
As I understand Fred Moolton’s posts of Jun 13, 2011 at 9:10 pm and at 11:09 pm, he is following the custom of combining the two questions, which you rightly distinguish, into a single overall scheme, which he expresses in his equation
ΔT = λo F / (1 – f) . Christopher Game
Christopher Game 6/14/11, 6:45 pm, Lindzen and Choi
Andy Lacis coauthored Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms, which included,
We use procedures and terminology of feedback studies in electronics (Bode, 1945) to help analyze the contributions of different feedback processes. Id., p. 131.
Bode was a pioneer in what is now called Systems Science. In this field, feedback is a physical signal generated internal to a system that modifies the system inputs. The physical signal can be, for example, energy, power, displacement, velocity, acceleration, material, temperature, or pressure. The paths from inputs to internally generated signals and back to the inputs are called loops, short for feedback loops.
Systems Science is an advanced field in electrical engineering encompassing Control Systems Theory, Detection and Estimation Theory, Communications and Information Theory, Signal Processing, Stochastic Modeling, Network Theory, Applied Mathematics, and Computer Science. For a couple of layman’s introductions to System Science, see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/
or with special emphasis on climate,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
Hansen, Lacis, et al., may have introduced feedback into climatology, and IPCC has a barely adequate definition as climate feedback in the AR4 and TAR Glossaries. However, it doesn’t use feedback as defined, but in two other ways. In one, IPCC feedback is the relation between correlated variables. See TAR feedback loops in Figures 7.4, p. 439; 7.6, p. 445; 7.7, p. 448; and 7.8, p. 454. These diagrams do not represent physical signals, and they have no inputs or outputs. They are not system diagrams so do not have the context for feedback.
In another sense, feedback to IPCC is a parameter computed at run time, contrasted with forcings.
IPCC has a problem mechanizing feedback because its chosen paradigm, radiative forcing, does not have complete, crucial flow parameters, especially heat, carbon, and water.
The Planck response is a transfer function or even a transducer in system science, and not a feedback because it is not a signal that modifies the inputs in any known system representation. It is probably a feedback in IPCC’s second definition.
Getting feedback right is not pedantry, but a critical issue in understanding why AGW is a failed model. The models do not represent clouds dynamically, so miss the largest feedback in climate – cloud cover feedback – which dominates and regulates Earth’s climate. (It is called cloud albedo outside IPCC circles, but IPCC preempted the term to be short for cloud albedo effect, which means specific cloud albedo, reflectivity per unit area. The GCMs neither use nor calculate the parameter of cloud cover.) Cloud albedo, or cloud cover feedback, produces a fast feedback in response to solar radiation, amplifying TSI. (IPCC knew about substantial TSI amplification by the time of AR4, but chose to dismiss the report for other reasons.) Cloud albedo produces a slow feedback in response to surface temperature, mitigating warming from any cause, i.e., the Sun. The latter is the simplest theoretical grounds for climate sensitivity, now empirically supported by Lindzen and Choi.
Thank you Jeff Glassman for your post of Jun 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm.
In my post of June 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm I was focusing on my perception of the appearance of two functions for the ‘Planck response’ in Fred Moolten’s posts of June 13, 2011 at 9:10 pm and at 11:09 pm.
Fred Moolten writes the equation ΔT = λo F / (1 – f) .
Schlesinger (1986, Climate Dynamics 1: 35-51) and Lindzen Choi (2011) use the symbol Go where Fred Moolten writes λo .
Chylek Lohmann Dubey Mishchenko Kahn Ohmura (2007, J. Geophys. Res. 112: D24S04) use notation for the sensitivity in effect as in ΔT = λ F.
Roe (2009, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci 37: 93-115) uses λo in the same way as does Fred Moolten.
Some writers use the symbol Λo defined by Λo = – 1 / λo , where their Λo means the same as Fred Moolten’s λo, and their λo means the same as the λp for the ‘Planck response’ of the review by Bony Colman Kattsov Allan Bretherton Dufresne Hall Hallegate Holland Ingram Randall Soden Tselioudis Webb (2006, J. Climate 19: 3445-3482).
Fred Moolten writes the equation ΔT = λo F / (1 – f) . His notation is different from that of the review by Bony et al. 2006, who would write the same idea as ΔTs =- F /[λp (1 – f)].
Bony et al. 2006 on page 3477 write the definition
λ = λp + λlr + λwv + λa + λc ,
where in effect their ΔTs = – F / λ means
the same as Fred Moulten’s ΔT = λo F /(1 – f) .
As I interpret them, Bony et al. 2006 seem to have only one function for their ‘Planck response’ λp, while Fred Moolten’s explanation of June 13, 2011 at 9:10 pm seems to have two for his ‘Planck response’, as I noted in my post of June 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm. Christopher Game
Someone get out the Tarot cards. It is the opinion, for example, of three of Japan’s leading scientists is that Climate science amounts to ‘ancient astrology’ and that climate change is the result of ‘natural cycles’ not ‘human industrial activity.’ Kanya Kusano wrote that the IPCC’s “conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an improvable hypothesis.” Shunichi Akasofu stated that, “We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis,” and cautioned that, “Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”
If there is one thing Socrates would know about politics and science, it is that… They don’t mix.
Anyone who cannot accept that is blinded by ideology and dogma. We all know the future: it is widely understod that the next IPCC report will be far more nuanced to accommodate global warming theory to the cold hard facts–ast projections failed the reality test.
“it is widely understod”
No, it is not — unless “understod” is actually a word and means something different from “understood.”
The next IPCC report is likely to reflect the fact that many of the effects of global warming are progressing faster than anticipated, including feedbacks such as permafrost melting and ice loss that are likely to accelerate warming further.
At 11:56 PM on 13 June, JCH comments on his father’s experience as a Fleet Marine Force hospital corpsman during World War 2, recounting the work done by U.S. Navy trauma surgeons on Iwo Jima, remarking:
Dentistry and and oral surgery are areas in which the specialized expertise of the DDS/DMD guys has always been recognized. In emergent situations, I’ve seen the dentists not only handle orofacial trauma but also take over as anesthesiologists in the operating room (and most of the ones I’ve known are very good at that, too). They’re the best option for salvaging and even restoring functionality in acute dental, maxillary, and mandibular trauma cases, getting you better prognosis for long-term results right from the outset.
Do enough work on motor vehicle accident (MVA) cases involving faces-through-the-windshield injuries, and I guarantee that you’re gonna get to know and value the dentists on the hospital staff.
It seems that discussions on the point I brought up have been diverted from where I had hoped it would go. Let’s go back and review a few facts, as far as I can determine them:
The Andereeg/Schneider blacklist was submitted for review on 12/22/09 and contributed by Schneider (A NAS member) on 9 April 2010. This horrible abortion of a so-called science paper appeared in the 6 July 2010 issue of PNAS. That is roughly seven months from submission for review to publication in supposedly the “premier” journal of American science. And how long has it taken to review the Lindzen/Choi paper — think about that folks.
What is sadly obvious is that the PNAS is anything but transparent and unbiased. Let’s face it, what we’re talking about is Steve Schneider, the wonder boy of environmental science, and Ralph Cicerone whose reputation as chancellor at UC Irvine prior to his current stint at NAS was less than acceptable to those of us who believe in a civilization free of prejudice.
Let’s go back a few years to 2002, specifically to the raunchy January 2, 2002 issue of Scientific American. Eleven pages of that issue were devoted to a take down of Bjorn Lomborg’s book “Skeptical Environmentalist” by Schneider and three authors, including John Holdren, a guy who has the unique capability of finding industry conspiracy under every rock and who now serves as the Obama Administration’s mouthpiece against AGW “deniers”. This abortion of a so-called science article (at this point I’m concerned about procedures for scientific publication, not the relevance/truth of the points put forth in the publication) was that eleven pages were expended in Scientific American to take down Lomborg, while John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American (at that time), would allow Lomborg only one page to reply. Rennie’s handling of this situation is a very clear example of Lysenkoism — think about that for a while folks!!! Kind of sounds like the Lindzen situation with PNAS.
Well parts of this thread has gone bonkers. I am deleting the posts that are off topic and personally insulting. If your message has disappeared, now you know what happened to it.
“Rob | June 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
You may want to check Herries et al, and reconsider you statement of “no observations” of radiative forcing by well mixed GHGs.”
I object to this sort of post; It is a vague inuendo that I dont know what I am talking about. This is a standard ploy by the proponents of CAGW while being at the same time, completely unscientific. It is normal, in scientific discussions, that, when giving a reference, one gives the full citation. In this intance I would requesr the following::-
1. The full citation of the reference.
2. A brief desrciption as to how radiative forcing was measured.
3. The value of the measured radiative forcing, with the measurement error. Presumably this is the change in radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2.
Let me stick my neck out. I will claim that Rob cannot provide any of this information. In any case, I am in a position where I cannot lose. If Rob does provide the information, I will write a full mea culpa, but I will have obtained some absolutely invaluable information that I could not have got from any other source.
Let me add two things. Firstly, I am Jim Cripwell; I live in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; there is only one person by that name in Ottawa; anyone can find me. Who the h*ll Rob is, I have no idea. He can accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about behind a cowardly pseudonym. Second, I apologize to Dr, Curry for this outburst. Judith has provided a fabulous blog for scientifc discussion, and if I were not so incensed, I would not clutter Climate Etc. with this rant.
Hi Jim,
To start with the end, my name is Rob Dekker. I’m a computer scientist living in Northern California. I was born and raised in Holland. Two feet on the ground and a good head on the shoulders. I study climate science as a hobby.
I do not like self-pronounced “skeptics” throwing strawman arguments and red herrings meanwhile accusing the finest scientists of fraud and calling their findings a “hoax”. I like reason and rational thought, and dislike media egos who misrepresent and mislead what scientists are reporting.
So, now that I got that out of the way, let me return to the sequence of statements that led to this point :
Judith Curry wrote :
The models have been compared exhaustively against observed data.
Jim Cripwell responded :
With respect to the models that estimate radiative forcing, no-feedback climate sensitivity, and feedbacks, there cannot have been any comparisons between the output of the models and observations, since there have not been, and there cannot be, any observations.
Now let me first note that Judith’s remark was about the observed consistency between climate models and observations of the responses of this planet. Not just average temperature response, but all other signatures of GHG induced GW as well.
Your assertions that “radiative forcing, no-feedback climate sensitivity, and feedbacks” are not measurable (are internal variables to the system) are thus completely irrelevant, since the measurable quantities already provide ample evidence that the models and the laws of physics are consistent with our observations of reality.
In that regard, your remarks indicate a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead scientific findings, and as I stated before, I do not like that kind of behavior.
From the three effects that you mentioned because you mentioned because you thought were immeasurable (“radiative forcing, no-feedback climate sensitivity, and feedbacks”), the first one is measurable in priciple and efforts have been made to do so by Harries et al and others. Here is one of these papers :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/pdf/410355a0.pdf
Now rather than present me with a laundry list of demands, I would recommend that you re-evaluate why you are asking for quantities that are not measurable.
Also, why you are demanding scientists to provide empirical evidence for such unmeasurable quantities while there is a mountain of measurable evidence available which you apparently ignore ?
First, thank you for your post, Robert. Let us hope Judith will keep this thread open, and we can have a nice, quiet, scientific discussion, which I welcome. First to deal with Harries. The title of the reference is “Increases in green house forcing INFERRED…..” (my capitals). Inferred, not measured. I stand by my claim that change of radiative forcing, as defined by the IPCC in Chapter 6 of the TAR to WG1, has not been measured.
However, I agree that as you add CO2 to the atrmosphere, what I call the radiation balance, is changed. Let me further concede that this change will result in an increase of surface temperature. AGW is real. The question always has been, how big a change?
I do not agree, but for the sake of argument let me concede, that there is such a thing as a change of radiative forcing, and it has a value of 3.7 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2. The question is, how much change does this make to surface temperatures? The ONLY way (and I emphasise the word only), the only way that any quantitative estimate of how much surface temperatures change because of a change of radiative forcing has been made, is by estimating, first no-feedback climate senstivity, and then feedbacks.
Let us forget for the moment, feedbacks. If, as I claim, no-feedback climate sensitivity is scientific nonsense, then feedbacks are irrelevant. No-feedback climate sensitivity cannot be measured and never has been measured. The formula DeltaT=DeltaF/Lamba makes no sense, as has been shown by Terry Oldberg and Tomas Milancovich.
However, the fact that no-feedbak climate sensitivity cannot be measured, means that the number is hypothetical and meaningless. We simply have no way of knowing whether any estimates are accurate.
Now you also state “Also, why you are demanding scientists to provide empirical evidence for such unmeasurable quantities while there is a mountain of measurable evidence available which you apparently ignore ?” This implies to me that you are claiming that there is another way of going from change in radiative forcing to change in surface temperature, other that through no-feedback climate sentisivitry. Is this what you are claiming, or have I misinterpreted you? If there is another way of going from change in radiative forcing to change in surface temperature, what is it? What is the physics? How are the estimates made? And if there is no other way of going from change in radiative forcing to change in surface temperature, other than through no-feedback climate sensitivity, then that is why I am demanding empirical evidence for the value of no-feedback cliamte sensitivity.
So I go back to my original claim. There have been no measurements of change in radiaitve forcing, no-feedback climate sentitivity, or feedbacks. The fact that there are no measurements of no-feedback climate sensitivity means that we have no idea how much a change in radiative focring (assuming such a quantity has meaning) means to change in surface temperature
–> “The next IPCC report is likely to reflect the fact that many of the effects of global warming are progressing faster than anticipated, including feedbacks such as permafrost melting and ice loss that are likely to accelerate warming further.”
Fear of global warming and socialism is to capitalism as the hair is that blinds the eye of a productive man who is busily shoveling manure.
“Fear of global warming and socialism is to capitalism as the hair is that blinds the eye of a productive man who is busily shoveling manure.”
1. There is way too much happening is this analogy; you need to slim it down.
2. We don’t need any more digressions into economic theory; the peer review process, Lindzen’s new paper, and climate sensitivity are the topics of this thread.
Judith,
Regarding this new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper, as far as I can see on the various blog, there is a great deal of talk about the PNAS rejection, but very very little about the science in the paper.
Lindzen and Choi obtain different feedback numbers from the same ERBE data than Trenberth 2010 and two other papers, and Lindzen claims (unsurprisingly) that his method is more accurately reproducing feedback numbers.
When I looked at the details of his method however, I found something very concerning :
The Lindzen and Choi method of doing FLUX/SST analysis (called “lead and lag” by Lindzen) seems to have a (strong?) bias towards negative feedback.
Here is why :
L&C analyzes fragments of SST changes that are either rising or falling, and then measures the FLUX response over the same period.
No problem there, has been done many times before by numerous other scientists.
The difference is that Lindzen is looking back and forth (lead and lag) in time, and finds the FLUX response that has the highest correlation with the SST change.
First remember that the FLUX (response) has significant noise on it. Let’s note that if you do not look back and forth in time (no lead or lag), then on average the FLUX response will tell you the average FLUX response to that SST change.
But also remember that the FLUX response with the highest correlation with SST will always be the response that starts at one extreme and ends at the other extreme. All other responses will correlate less, since they will show opposite slopes at the start and/or end points, which obviously don’t correlate well with the SST.
So, if you are allowed to look back and forth in time through that noisy signal, you have a high chance of finding a lead or lag time where the FLUX response is larger (and thus correlates better) than the no-lag response alone.
So Lindzen and Choi method will (for each fragment of SST analysed) find the lead or lag time where the FLUX response is the largest !
When the FLUX response is larger for a certain SST change, the calculated feedback will be lower, and thus this method has a bias towards lowering the feedback calculated from the ERBE data.
Let me note that the effect (bias) will be stronger the more lead or lag time is allowed, since there will be more start and end-points in the noise to consider, and the largest response will correlate the best.
So for short lag times and strong negative feedback (large FLUX response), Lindzen’s method will be approximately correct. But for no-feedback or positive feedback the lead-lag bias will be very significant.
In fact Lindzen mentions himself that his method works best for large negative feedbacks .
He also mentions that his method works less good for small feedbacks (and consequently) large lag times, which, as I showed above is consistent with increased bias.
Interestingly enough, he does not show what feedback parameter number he obtains for a system with no feedback or positive feedback, in which case the lead-lag-noise bias will be greatest.
Needless to say that maybe Lindzen drew some very premature conclusions when he discards other scientists’ work (Trenberth et al, Dessler et al) who do NOT use his (biased) lead-lag-correlate method.
Now I have not quantified this bias yet, but this bias should be very easily reproducible using Lindzen’s (Spencer’s) “simple model” simulation,
Interesting ?
Rob, thanks for your comment. If i recall correctly, this issue about fragmenting the SST record was discussed in the previous climateaudit thread on LC Part I.
Rob – So you are saying for hypothetical feedbacks A,B, and C; with A being a large feedback, B a ‘medium’ feedback, and C a small feedback; that the lag times for effect of A,B, and C will be A<B<C; right?
How many smaller feedbacks do you think exist and what is their magnitude compared to the primary (largest) feedback A?
Jim, you missed the point.
What I’m saying is that in a climate system without feedback (such as a planet without an atmosphere) the Lindzen and Choi method will find a negative feedback just because of the noise. And that is simply incorrect (and that is nicely worded).
Rob – The arbitrary choice of lag intervals (different for LW and SW) was, I believe, one of the significant flaws of LC09. The fact that it wasn’t corrected in the new paper is troubling, but your point cogently indicates why – it was necessary to drive the feedback calculation maximally in the negative direction. I’m not suggesting that this was a deliberate attempt at deception, but that it was more likely an inadvertent consequence of an attempt to find the highest correlation coefficient between the variables.
I had been aware of the flaw in both versions, but your analysis adds considerable insight into the nature of the bias it introduces.
Thanks Fred.
The sad part is tha the cherry-picked lag intervals in LC09 was not even the worst of the 4 major mistakes made in LC09. The award of the worst mistake goes to a high-school algebra-level omission of the Planck response in the feedback formula, which triggered even Dr.Spencer to object to the paper.
In this supposedly “corrected” paper now we have this mistake of negative feedbach bias in his new lead-lag algorithm, and there is also a very suspicious Fig 7 which hints at more tricks in Lindzen and Choi 2011.
Needless to say that a scientist with 200+ papers in his portfolio should not be making such a large number of fundamental errors, regardless of weather these were deliberate or inadvertently introduced.
In my opinion, this sequence of mistakes in his own work puts the fact that Lindzen is still uses his scientific credibility to push a certain political agenda (into national media and in decrarations to US Congress) into a different perspective.
Rattus exhibits many of the Überwarmist defects. One of them is to rsspond to the fantastic opportunity given to us by the sleeping Sun by declaring we know everything already. Exactly the frame of mind against which Galileo had to fight all his life.
–> “There is way too much happening is this analogy; you need to slim it down… We don’t need any more digressions into economic theory; the peer review process, Lindzen’s new paper, and climate sensitivity are the topics of this thread.”
The real problem of ‘global warming’ is self-dealing Weathermen of Western academia engaged political fearmongering to line their own pockets.
if I overstate my case by the tiny amount of 0.5/decade, I am overstating my case by the huge amount of 5/century. A difficult concept apparently.
–> “…overstating my case by the huge amount of 5/century. A difficult concept apparently.”
Question: What if global warming were to continue for 100 years? But, what if as throughout the 10,000 years of the Holocene, the global warming had nothing to do with humans–still a disaster?
Answer: Even if you assumed that humans were heating the globe by releasing CO2, as Walter Stark noted, humanity would run out of fossil fuels `well before any drastic effects on climate are possible.’ Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that global warming has been much better for humanity than global cooling. To put global warming into historical perspective, the Minoan, Roman, and medieval warm periods have one thing in common. The current global temperatures are 5°F cooler than these previous warm periods. Even given the most alarmist predictions based on a `doubling of atmospheric CO2,’ as Walter Starck observed, `The net result…is most likely to be positive.”
Rob Dekker, I have waited 24 hours, and no reply from you. Do I take this to mean that you agree with me?
Perhaps he does not agree with you but does not want to admit it because the facts are contrary to his preconceptions. You said, “However, I agree that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere, what I call the radiation balance, is changed. Let me further concede that this change will result in an increase of surface temperature. AGW is real…”
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
Wagathon, There are at least two sides to the discussions between the proponents and opponents of CAGW. Some of us deniers try to show that the CAGW theory and evidence are just plain wrong, and that Is what I am attempting to do with Rob Dekker. There is also a discussion of what is right, which is what you are suggesting. I am hoping Rob will return to the discussion, and try and argue that, in fact, the theory of CAGW is completely valid.
Ok but, The IPCC defines `radiation forcing’ to be ‘the reduction in upward directed infrared at the tropopause due to the increase in CO2 concentration.’ UN-approved GCMs of the science authoritarians grossly exaggerate surface temperature responses to radiative forcing. “The computer models on which the IPCC based its fourth assessment projections significantly underestimate the rate of increase of evaporation with temperature when compared to both theoretical and observational estimates… [and] projections of global temperature rise made by these contemporary computer models are nearly an order of magnitude too large. A better representation in computer models of the response of evaporation and surface latent heat exchange with temperature is a primary requirement if the uncertainty about anthropogenic global warming is to be reduced. Without this improvement the projected temperature response to anthropogenic forcing will likely continue to be exaggerated.” ~William Kininmonth
But the real question should no longer be how global warming alarmists continue to avoid the obvious. We know that global warming alarmists underestimate the rate of increase of surface evaporation due to increases in temperature. They have to know that doing so is not supported by theoretical and observational evidence. The real question should be WHY is it that only Western government scientists have abandoned reason?
The public already has been polled many times and has registered strong opinions about global warming alarmism. The public thinks AGW is an envirowhackpot religion.
We know what the secular, socialist government scientists are saying but we should understand why. The Left and the Big Government Bureaucracy/Educational Industrial Complex is spreading lies and deception about global warming and pushing the politics of fear because they believe in doing so they can continue to ride the backs of the productive and live well while avoiding having the effort of actually providing anything of value to society to justify their indulgences.
The people who support the politics of global warming are same people who have been destroying the culture and the country for years. Among them are global warming scientists who engage in the politics of personal destruction as their peers continue to head for the UN exits. The global warming fearmongers continue to stick their fingers in public eye even after everyone with a brain clearly understands by now that global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic—even after MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) has been debunked as a scientific fraud.
We know what the nominal independent variable is that is key to understanding both global warming and cooling. It’s the sun, stupid.
Four times as many people agree global warming is happening as think it is not (64% to 18%).
One and a half times as many people think it is primarily human-caused as opposed to natural (47% to 33%).
Almost three times as many people think global warming will hurt their families (60%) as think it won’t (23%).
The public does not share the overwhelming acceptance of the scientific community of AGW — among the people who think evolution is a lie, or Sarah Palin would make a great president, most don’t believe in AGW, and that brings the overall numbers down. Fortunately people like that are in the minority.
AGW is among those problems, like the deficit, or the healthcare system, that most people agree will have to be dealt with some day, but which the body politic is procrastinating about because it is easier to put off dealing with a long-term problem for one more day. Inertia is the primary obstacle to effective action, not “skepticism.”
Oh, I’m sorry, the source for those figures of course: http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf
Also, in the first set of figures, it is three-and-a-half times as many, not four times as many.
I nominate this as the most convoluted post that Robert has ever posted.
“The public does not share the overwhelming acceptance of the scientific community of AGW — among the people who think evolution is a lie, or Sarah Palin would make a great president, most don’t believe in AGW, and that brings the overall numbers down. Fortunately people like that are in the minority.”
Which ‘public; do you have in mind? The global public? Western educated public? Andean peasants? Just the guys you talk to in downtown Warming Central?
Global warming theory has sunk to the level of, ‘Just wait and you’ll see if our predictions come true; you’ll see then.’
Of course, the GCMs of the global warming alarmists cannot be offered as proof of their predictions. GCMs are offered by the EPA and government science authoritarians but the public understands it is done to justify the Left’s takeover of energy and thereby all means of production.
We all have come to appreciate what the GCMs really are: simple models that have been ‘tuned’ through the use of parameters to mimic observations, after the fact. Their forecasting ability is demonstrably deficient and they can never be validated because they fail hindcasting.
Moreover, the statistical significance of reductionist models that are constructed in this manner can never be appreciated as being accurate because the degrees of freedom can never be known.
McShane and Wyner put forward 2010 that shows how silly the work of the UN-scientists has been. And, the work of M&S can actually be duplicated by others. M&S’ conclusions can actually be verified.
And, what do M&S teach us? Without question, MBH98/99/08 (the ‘hockey stick’ graph) is scientific fraud. And, not just because of a lack of ‘backcasting’ ability—that has been proven before. M&S showed that the data upon which the GCMs are founded contain absolutely no global warming ‘signal’ whatsoever.
Even Phil Jones admits that there has been no statistically relevant global warming since 1995. Jones acknowledges—as does Kevin Trenberth—that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for a decade.
Trenberth says it’s a ‘travesty’ that ‘we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.’ He’s still looking for it to turn up somewhere.
Perhaps all of the HOT is hidden deep ocean crevasse because, right? Trenberth is so sure he can’t be wrong. That is what Hot World Syndrome does to a person.
The ONLY compelling convergent evidence we see in the field of global warming is the picture of collusion and corruption. The foi2009.pdf disclosures of CRUgate completely destroyed the credibility of paleoclimatologists, who are now seen as the witchdoctors of anti-energy academia. Their science has been likened to the study of ancient astrology.
It is painful to see these global warming charlatans squirm and lie to the people as they try to hide from their past and all of their failures and attempts ignore history—like previous interglacial Warming periods—or refuse to admit any fact that contradicts their preconceptions about a looming doomsday brought about by modernity. The politics of global warming has boiled down watching the Left running from the truth by turning English into a liars language and simply dismissing the corruption of science so as to keep the hoax alive long enough to achieve their socialist Utopia.
It is nothing but ‘climate porn’ to hide the decline and then worry about where in the ocean a killer heat wave may be lurking—just waiting to surface and take flight like the Phoenix—and causing Thermageddon in its wake. What Trenberth is saying is nothing short of the sort of fearmongering scare tactics that we’ve seen liberal fascists use before to stampede the herd.
The global warming alarmists not only must pretend to just believe that global temperatures will be warmer than now in 30-50 years. They must also pretend to believe that the Earth will be disastrously warmer.
Additionally, we must accept that even if America commits economic suicide, that the global warming alarmists’ predictions of doomsday cannot change. We know that Brazil, Russia, India, China are all getting a good chuckle at the self-defeating and hypocritical ideology and energy policy of Western Leftist-libs.
The Chinese are more concerned but not about global warming. The Chinese are afraid that the Democrat party is destroying the dollar. The Chinese know that the Leftist-libs hate capital. The Chinese learned that capital does not grow on trees. Western Leftists have never learned that and they really do care to understand that the dollar is a store of value and if end the end a dollar is only worth 2 cents on the dollar, the Left believes it doesn’t matter because it’s just the savings of the productive that is being usurped.
Nothing matters to the Leftist-libs. In truth doesn’t matter. Their secular, socialist utopia cannot be mistaken for anything other than vacuous nihilism. Global warming alarmism is nothing more than a symptom of their cultural and societal dysfunction.
Wagathon, doubtless I’m telling you about resources with which you’re already familiar, but I’m sure that others reading here aren’t as cognizant of the materials aggregated and maintained by Joanne Nova and other AGW debunkers. I can recommend the following:
(1) Global bullies want your money
(2) Climate Money
(3) Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?
In addition, there is an earlier (22 September 2008) paper:
(4) “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”
Share and enjoy
Even Phil Jones admits that there has been no statistically relevant global warming since 1995. … – Wagathon
An update.
Ah, yes – and IIRC, he used a data set to achieve that result that he has previously claimed was unsuited to the purpose.
I believe you Jim; I really really do. But do you think maybe you could correctly remember a link?
All I can see right now is when he said there was not statistically significant warming between 1995 and 2009, he left out the data for 2010 because, well, because 2010 had not yet happened, or at least not in terms of the snails pace at which HadCRUT posts new data to their website. Maybe to speed themselves up, they could FedEx themselves a FOIA request.
Jim and Wagathon,
You seem to be from the same school of non-scientific debate, packed with strawman arguments, red herrings and misinterpretations and reaching dramatic conclusions from minimal data inputs.
Take the last sentences from you posts :
Jim : The fact that there are no measurements of no-feedback climate sensitivity means that we have no idea how much a change in radiative focring (assuming such a quantity has meaning) means to change in surface temperature
And Wagathon :
GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth
Now, do you guys actually recognize how your own rethoric created these conclusions, and that they have lost all contact with reality ? Do you see how many assumptions you made to get to these conclusions ? Do you recognize how many other conclusions you could have drawn using the same input information (such as the results of the “MoonShine” project) ?
And thus, do you see that by posting rethoric and unsubstantiated conclusions like this you are contributing to the mountains of disinformation about climate science that is continuously flooding internet ?
You seem to also have to constantly re-enforce each other with this sort of nonsense reasoning, which is an indication that you don’t really believe the messages that you are posting.
And let me also note that you guys are way off topic for this (Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper) thread.
Above, I posted an analysis of the Lindzen and Choi feedback calculation method, using scientific reasoning, which shows that Lindzen’s method results in reporting negative feedback where there is none (negative feedback bias in general).
I’d be happy to discuss that finding with similar scientific reasoning, but will no longer respond to off-topic philosophical stories.
Rob writes “Jim and Wagathon,
You seem to be from the same school of non-scientific debate, packed with strawman arguments, red herrings and misinterpretations and reaching dramatic conclusions from minimal data inputs.”
I am sure I will not get a reply from Rob, but Dr. Curry might be interested in seeing how difficult it is to have a scientific discussion between the proponents and opponents of the CAGW debate. Rob seems to have forgotten that he initiated the discussion with
Rob | June 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
You may want to check Herries et al, and reconsider you statement of “no observations” of radiative forcing by well mixed GHGs.
So I post a reasonable scientific discussion with several very relevant questions. All Rob does is to ignore the difficult parts of the science which he cannot answer, and launches into a viscous ad hominem attack.
No wonder Dr.Curry has difficulty intitiating a discussion from both sides of the science of CAGW.
Jim C –
Is “Robert” now posting as “Rob”?
Jim (Cripwell), regarding initiating a scientific discussion :
You are a scientist right ? Retired or not, as a scientist, are you not at least a little bit curious in verifying if my claim of negative feedback bias in the Lindzen and Choi 2011 method is correct or not ?
Also, since Lindzen and Choi attempt to quantify feedback in Earth’s climate system, and even extend their conclusions to claims about the climate sensitivity, don’t you feel any urge to comment on how they determine such quantities that you claim “we have no idea” about ?
And Jim(Owen) : Rob and Robert posting here are two different people.
Rob writes “Jim (Cripwell), regarding initiating a scientific discussion :
You are a scientist right ? Retired or not, as a scientist, are you not at least a little bit curious in verifying if my claim of negative feedback bias in the Lindzen and Choi 2011 method is correct or not ?”
I am interested in all sorts of things. I have little interest in the Lindzen and Choi paper. My main concern is the validity of the approach in estimating the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere of using the cocept of no-feedback climate sensitivity. I thought I had found someone who believes that CAGW is real in yourself who was knowldegeable, and who was prepared to discuss the validity of no-feedback sensitivity. Evidently I was wrong. Pity.
Cripwell wrote : I have little interest in the Lindzen and Choi paper
Yes. It was very obvious that your agenda did not include discussing the subject of this thread. And by stating “AGW is real” you already admit the validity of at least the no-feedback response.
Rob writes “And by stating “AGW is real” you already admit the validity of at least the no-feedback response.”
Can you explain this in detail. Because I claim the no-feedback climate sensitivity is scientific garbage, and the greenhouse effect is caused by a change in the lapse rate. How have I admitted that the no-feedback response is valid?
If, in the 4 years that you have been argueing on blogs you would have actually instead spend some effort to write down you scientific argument of why “AGW is real” and is caused by a change in lapse rate, instead of posting pictures of nude women on your home page, then maybe I would be inclined to engage in an argument with you.
But in absense of your scientific argument, and your disinterest in Lindzen’s paper (who accepts the no-feedback climate sensitivity part of AGW theory) your statement of “AGW is real” suggests that you accept the no-feedback climate sensitivity my means of deduction.
I must say, Rob, you are exccellent at launching ad hominem attackas, but you dont seem to understand much science. To quote Richard Feynman for the umpteenth time “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. I dont care if Lindzen or any other high priced help believes in no-feedback climate sensitivityt, IHMO they are worng. If you chase what I have been writing before there were blogs, you will find precisely why I believe no-feedback climate sensitivity is wrong. And you can not show it is right.
I just hope Dr. Curry has been reading our little exchange, and realizes that one of her “tribe” cannot make the case in favor of no-feedback climate sensitivity..
Jim, cut the crap. You state “I believe no-feedback climate sensitivity is wrong”.
If you were a scientist, you would not “believe” anything. You would show your argument, using emperical evidence and the laws of physics, instead of handwaving at Dr. Curry’s “tribe”, accusing me of ad hominems and asking me to chase what you wrote before there were blogs.
Show some spine, dude ! Be a man, and present your argument !
–>”… Lindzen’s method results in reporting negative feedback where there is none (negative feedback bias in general). I’d be happy to discuss that finding with similar scientific reasoning, but will no longer respond to off-topic philosophical stories.”
Philip Stott tells us, “that climate is the most complex, coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system known.” Willis Eschenbach has brought this reality to life while exposing the frailty to AGW theory.
Global warming alarmists have the simple belief that increased CO2 will enhance the greenhouse effect despite the reality, “that the climate is an almost unimaginably complex dynamic system.” Eschenbach has identified “five major intricate, interrelated, and incompletely understood subsystems – atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere. (And that’s not counting the extra-terrestrial system, involving solar radiation, the complex interaction of helio- and geo-magnetism, solar wind, cosmic rays, coronal mass ejections, and the like.)”
“Each of these subsystems has a host of known and unknown forcings, interactions, phase transitions, limitations, resonances, couplings, response times, feedbacks, natural cycles, emergent phenomena, constructal constraints, and control systems. Finally, climate is affected by things occurring on spatial scales from the molecular to the planetary, and on temporal scales from the instantaneous to millions of years.
“To illustrate what this complexity means for the current “simple physics” paradigm, consider a similar “simple physics” problem in heat transfer. Suppose we take a block of aluminum six feet long and put one end of it into a bucket of hot water. We attach a thermometer to the other end, keep the water hot, and watch what happens. Fairly soon, the temperature at the other end of the block starts to rise. It’s a one-dimensional problem, ruled by simple physics.
“To verify our results, we try it again, but this time with a block of iron. Once again the temperature soon rises at the other end, just a bit more slowly than the aluminum We try it with a block of glass, and a block of wood, and a block of copper. In each case, after time, the temperature at the other end of the block rises. This is clearly simple physics in each case.
“As a final test, I look around for something else that is six feet long to use in the investigation. Finding nothing, I have an inspiration. I sit down, put my feet in the hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth and wait for the temperature of my head to start rising. After all, heat transmission is simple physics, isn’t it? So I just sit with my feet in the hot water and wait for the temperature of my head to rise.
“And wait.
“And wait …
“The moral of the story is that in dealing with complex systems such as the climate or the human body, the simplistic application of one-dimensional analyses or the adoption of a simple paradigm based on simple physics often gives results that have no resemblance to real world outcomes. It is this inability of the current paradigm to lead us to any deeper understanding of climate that underlines the need for a new paradigm. The current paradigm is incapable of solving many of the puzzles posed by the variations in global climate.”
Wagathon, how are your lengthy posts here (sometimes 4 of them in an hour) even remotely related to the subject of this thread (Lindzen and Choi’s paper), or to my finding of negative feedback bias in their methods ? Are you a spam bot ?
–>Are you a spam bot ?
I am not negatively biased? I believe in scientific skepticism. I can admit facts. Are you? Do you? Can you?
Strip away the confusion and we see that all the global warming alarmists are really saying is they are willing to believe in an unprovable hypothesis. That, of course, is what superstition is all about.
The goal of the scientific method is to free minds from hatred, prejudice and fear born of superstition and ignorance. To forsake science is what it means to be a global warming alarmist. The AGW fearmongers of climate change should be called AGW True Believers—it’s their religion.
Any scientist with a reputation to protect made a beeline for the UN exits years ago. Global warming has never been about the science: it’s nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic.
The ‘radiative forcing constants’ used in climate simulation models have no physical meaning… such results are invalid and have no relationship to the physical reality of the Earth’s climate. Radiative forcing by CO2 is, by definition a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the outcome is predetermined by the empirical modeling assumptions… It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.” [See, pge 196 – Clark R. A null hypothesis for CO2.EE 2010;21(4):171-200]
IMHO, Lindzen knew he would be rejected and he just wanted to expose what Phil said the email about him and Trenberth wer e highjacking the review process.
DCA, if Lindzen knew he would be rejected, then why did he still insert fundamental scientific flaws in his paper ?
And still no one can explain why GHG ‘forcing’ will be amplified by over 400% when solar forcing is only amplified by about 60%.
Yet they vehemently object to a negative feedback of about 40% from Lindzen and Choi. I think the peer review process is seriously broken.
RW wrote : no one can explain why GHG ‘forcing’ will be amplified by over 400% when solar forcing is only amplified by about 60%.
Would you care to present evidence for this statement ?
And regarding they vehemently object to a negative feedback of about 40% from Lindzen and Choi
I would like to point out the Lindzen and Choi 2011 method has a fundamental scientific flaw which I pointed out above, which creates negative feedback where it is non-existent.
Now, if you are happy to embrace scientifically flawed methods as long as they sustain your preconceived belief system, then by all means, stay ignorant.
For the rest of us, and for the L&C reviewers, Lindzen and Choi 2011 obtains conclusions that are inconsistent with previous analyses of the same data, analyses that were not tainted by the fundamental scientific errors that have become a consistent theme for papers originating from Lindzen and Choi.
As a lay blogger with an interest in climate sensitivity, I came here to learn about LC11. The most relevant part of this very long discussion thread comes from Rob Dekker, whose critique, if sound, is a devastating blow for LC11. You can find it by searching for FLUX/SST.
The sceptics’ case is predicated on low climate sensitivity. There is a large body of evidence that converges around the accepted 3*C figure, and each attempt by Lindzen and Spencer to sustain a smaller figure seems to fail.
Is that a fair summary of the position?
There are stronger arguments for a low sensitivity than what LC11 put forward. See our recent discussion related to sensitivity here
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/07/climate-sensitivity-follow-up/
Thanks Judith. This is what I am after.
Richard Lawson 7/13/11, 6:14 am, Lindzen & Choi
Using climate models, IPCC predicted that Earth’s temperature would most likely rise 3ºC at equilibrium in response to a doubling of CO2. The range was likely 2ºC to 4.5ºC, and very unlikely to be less than 1.5ºC. CO2 has not doubled, and IPCC did not and could not predict the path by which the climate would arrive at that increase, and offered no rationale by which the climate might ever attain an equilibrium.
Lindzen and Choi used satellite data and presumably some contemporary estimate for CO2 increases to estimate climate feedback parameters, from which they predicted that the rise would be only 0.7ºC. As L&C said their result makes the AR4 prediction impossible. This would invalidate the AGW model used by IPCC.
You wrote,
The sceptics’ case is predicated on low climate sensitivity. There is a large body of evidence that converges around the accepted 3ºC figure, and each attempt by Lindzen and Spencer to sustain a smaller figure seems to fail.
Is that a fair summary of the position?
No, it is not a fair summary. You include two major points of bias, the use of the word sceptics, and the notion of evidence and its convergence. Skepticism is a virtue among scientists. It is not a body of people, capitalized Skeptics (US), waging battle against the Consensus, as the AGW advocates like to characterize their revisionist, post-normal version of science. Scads of papers are available in the literature supporting IPCC’s model. In fact, scientists may not publish in the leading peer-reviewed climate journals, including Science and Nature, unless they conform to the IPCC’s AGW model. The cluster of reports supporting 3ºC is redundant, traceable to the same source – erroneous climate models.
The ultimate and determinative scientific test is whether significant (i.e., non-trivial) predictions of a model can be validated by measurements — fresh facts not used in the domain of the model. The method is à priori cause corroborated by à posteriori effects. Only facts, and not even a collection of predictions from a variety of models, are evidence — information which tends to validate.
To its credit, IPCC frankly admits that Earth’s climate is highly responsive to cloud albedo based on the simplest theoretical grounds, that its models cannot account reasonably for cloud albedo, and that that shortcoming is the largest source of uncertainty in its predictions. AR4, ¶1.5.2 Model Clouds and Climate Sensitivity, pp. 114, 116. The climate will vary by as much as the entire 3ºC, up or down, with a change in albedo too small to be measured within the current state of the art.
These are not mere errors in AR4 as Nic Lewis alleged in his paper (7/5/11) referenced above by Dr. Curry (7/13/11, 6:31 am). Besides, science post-Descartes does not set criteria for scientific models beyond the simple test of whether their predictions are validated. IPCC has set a most difficult and improbable course for itself by adopting radiative forcing over heat flow for its climate modeling paradigm. Without flow variables, its models can not replicate feedback (signals generated from within a system that are transmitted or communicated back to modify the system inputs), and taking into account that the whole field of control system theory would not exist if closed loop behavior could be modeled with open loop (i.e., no feedback) models. IPCC models are not wrong, just unlikely to succeed to the desired degree. And now, supported à priori on the simplest theoretical grounds and IPCC’s admissions, L&C (2009, 2011) are beginning the à posteriori process of the inevitable invalidation of the climate models.
IPCC climate models are open loop with respect to cloud cover, predicting climate sensitivity to be measured in an unavoidably closed loop real world.
Additionally, IPCC determined that the Sun was not a significant source of climate variability. In coming to this conclusion, it refused to account for the strong, measured solar amplifying effect reported by Stott et al. (2003), and later confirmed by Tung et al (2008). Again using the simplest theoretical grounds , the source of this solar amplification is likely the response of clouds to total solar intensity, analogous to the burn off effect. Clouds, not conjectured and easily falsified equilibrium, govern Earth’s climate in its warm state. They constitute a rapid, positive feedback amplifying the Sun, and a slow, negative feedback regulating against warming from any cause. CO2, doubling or not, is a red herring.
Not scientific skepticism but mere political savvy is sufficient to demand that IPCC rectify these admitted and obvious core faults. Until it has done so, it has a civic, ethical duty to retract its public alarm raised over impending catastrophes.
Very nicely put, Jeff.
“The cluster of reports supporting 3ºC is redundant, traceable to the same source – erroneous climate models.”
Not so. Models do demonstrate a CS value ~3*C, but several independent approaches to the problem, including palaeontological studies, ice core records, and other sources of temperature variation data. It is impressive that these many disparate approaches all converge on the 3*C figure, and in particular the lower limit of 1.5*C. It is quite a challenge to overthrow that body of evidence.
Regarding cloud feedback uncertainties, Dessler’s findings have confirmed the cloud feedback figure used in the models, have they not?
The discussion on Nick Lewis centres mainly around the question of why the IPCC applied probabilistic methods to Forster & Gergory.
I believe what we need is a full discussion of the proposition of low climate sensitivity, because this is the key to the whole debate. If sensitivity is low, we can all relax, at least until Peak Oil hits; if it is not, we need to make some big changes.
Richard Lawson 7/13/11, 2:32 pm, Lindzen & Choi
You wrote, Regarding cloud feedback uncertainties, Dessler’s findings have confirmed the cloud feedback figure used in the models, have they not?
Re Dessler: IPCC’s TAR and AR4 combined cite four papers with Dessler as an author, relying on none of them specifically in its climate sensitivity discussion. As can be seen, all of them are geographically regional and atmospherically local, so would not have been directly applicable to the global parameter of equilibrium climate sensitivity:
Dessler, A.E., and S.C. Sherwood, 2000: Simulations of tropical upper tropospheric humidity. J. Geophys. Res., 105, 20155–20163.
Dessler, A.E., and S.C. Sherwood, 2004: Effect of convection on the summertime extratropical lower stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D23301, doi:10.1029/2004JD005209.
Minschwaner, K., and A.E. Dessler, 2004: Water vapor feedback in the tropical upper troposphere: Model results and observations. J. Clim., 17, 1272–1282.
Minschwaner, K., A.E. Dessler, and S. Parnchai, 2006: Multi-model analysis of the water vapour feedback in the tropical upper troposphere. J. Clim., 19, 5455–5464.
You may be thinking of the Dessler paper referenced by Lindzen & Choi (2011):
Dessler, A. E., 2010: A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade. Science, 330, 1523-1527.
Here Dessler says,
The cloud feedback is conventionally defined as the change in ΔR_cloud per unit of change in ΔT_s. P. 1525.
This is not the definition of cloud feedback used by L&C, nor Trenberth et al., (2010), cited by L&C (2011), nor is it any of the three IPCC usages of the term, two implicit and one explicit. If that’s not clear enough, Dessler defines cloud feedback in terms of a parameter ΔR_cloud which is uniquely defined and derived by Dessler.
Furthermore, Dessler’s paper relates strictly to short-term fluctuations, mentioned 19 times in his paper. His graphs relate to 2000 to 2010, a period in which global warming was absent, and a period on the scale of weather, not climate. Dessler notes,
The primary source of climate variations over this time period is the EI Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is a self-sustained coupled atmosphere-ocean mode of variability.
Because the ENSO variation averaged over climate scales, several decades to millennia, is zero, this is further evidence that Dessler’s analysis is not applicable to global climate model estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Re cloud feedback in the models. As described by IPCC, the climate models do not have a cloud feedback figure for any authority to support. IPCC divides total cloud feedback in two, one part the cloud albedo effect and the other cloud cover. The latter is parameterized, and is not modeled as a dynamic effect. IPCC does not even have a cloud feedback figure.
In great candor, IPCC has admitted repeatedly that its implementation of cloud feedback, whether or not that term includes cloudiness, is missing. Here is a long sampler:
Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity … . Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. AR4 SPM, p. 12; ¶8.6.2.3, p. 630.
In spite of this undeniable progress, the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain, and this uncertainty was cited as one of the key factors explaining the spread in model simulations of future climate for a given emission scenario. This cannot be regarded as a surprise: that the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to changing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must depend strongly on cloud feedbacks can be illustrated on the simplest theoretical grounds, using data that have been available for a long time. … Clouds, which cover about 60% of the Earth’s surface, are responsible for up to two-thirds of the planetary albedo, which is about 30%. An albedo decrease [increase] of only 1%, bringing the Earth’s albedo from 30% to 29% [or vice versa], would cause an increase [decrease] in the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature of about [±] 1°C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. 4AR, ¶1.5.2, p. 114.
The importance of simulated cloud feedbacks was revealed by the analysis of model results … They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parametrization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities. Id.
Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and the relatively poor simulation of boundary layer clouds in the present climate is a reason for some concern. Therefore the results discussed below need to be considered with caution. 4AR, ¶7.5.2 Indirect Effects of Aerosols on Clouds and Precipitation, p. 559.
Recent studies reaffirm that the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks. The shortwave impact of changes in boundary-layer clouds, and to a lesser extent midlevel clouds, constitutes the largest contributor to inter-model differences in global cloud feedbacks. The relatively poor simulation of these clouds in the present climate is a reason for some concern. The response to global warming of deep convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty in projections since current models predict different responses of these clouds. Observationally based evaluation of cloud feedbacks indicates that climate models exhibit different strengths and weaknesses, and it is not yet possible to determine which estimates of the climate change cloud feedbacks are the most reliable. 4AR, Ch. 8, Executive Summary, p. 593.
cloud feedback is still an uncertain feature of the global coupled models … . AR4 ¶10.3.2.2, p. 768.
cloud feedbacks (particularly from low-level clouds) have been confirmed as the primary source of climate sensitivity differences … . 4AR, Box 10.2, p. 799; TS.4.4, p. 65; TS.6.4.2, p. 88.
The sign of the climate change radiative feedback associated with the combined effects of dynamical and temperature changes on extratropical clouds is still unknown. [¶] The role of polar cloud feedbacks in climate sensitivity has been emphasized … . However, these feedbacks remain poorly understood. AR4 ¶8.6.3.2.1 Understanding of the physical processes involved in cloud feedbacks, p. 637.
An observational test focused on the global response of clouds to seasonal variations has been proposed to evaluate model cloud feedbacks, but has not yet been applied to current models. 4AR, ¶8.6.3.2.3, p. 638.
[T]he errors in the simulation of the different cloud types … cast doubts on the reliability of the model cloud feedbacks. AR4 ¶8.6.3.2.2 , p. 638.
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable. AR4 ¶8.6.3.2.4 Conclusion on cloud feedbacks, p. 638.
Cloud feedbacks can affect both the spatial signature of the response to a given forcing and the sign of the change in temperature relative to the sign of the radiative forcing. AR4 ¶9.2.2.1, p. 676.
Structural uncertainties in the models, for example, in the representation of cloud feedback processes or the physics of ocean mixing, will affect results for climate sensitivity and are very difficult to quantify. AR4 ¶9.6.4 Summary of Observational Constraints for Climate Sensitivity, p. 726.
cloud feedback is still an uncertain feature of the global coupled models … . AR4 ¶10.3.2.2 Cloud and Diurnal Cycle, p. 768.
Confidence has increased in the strength of water vapour-lapse rate feedbacks, whereas cloud feedbacks (particularly from low-level clouds) have been confirmed as the primary source of climate sensitivity differences. 4AR, Box 10.2, p. 799.
[D]ifferences in cloud feedback are the dominant source of uncertainty in the transient response of surface temperature in the AR4 ensemble, as in previous IPCC assessments. AR4 ¶10.5.4.3, p. 807.
Further observables have been suggested as potential constraints on future changes, but are not yet used in formal probabilistic estimates. These include measures of climate variability related to cloud feedbacks … . 4AR ¶10.5.4.4, p. 807.
Narrowing the uncertainty in cloud feedback may require both improved parametrizations of cloud microphysical properties and improved representations of cloud macrophysical properties, through improved parametrizations of other physical processes and/or increases in resolution. AR4 ¶10.5.4.3 Diagnosing Drivers of Uncertainty from Ensemble Results, p. 807.
How many times must IPCC say that it doesn’t have a handle on cloud feedback to penetrate the skulls of AGW believers, to convince them that the AGW is not ready for release? These citations are not half the available number, and they demonstrate not only that IPCC has failed to implement cloud albedo even to its own satisfaction, but that it sees no clear path to remedy the situation. Cloud feedback is not only an unsolved problem for its own sake, but IPCC admits it can reverse the sign of other forcings. For cloud feedback, the dominant, controlling parameter in Earth’s warm climate state, second in importance only to the Sun, IPCC and its climate models have no answer.
In order for L&C to assess cloud feedback as it might appear in IPCC’s climate models, they had to introduce a new feedback function, called F. IPCC gets an F.
Dessler’s papers, being published in conforming advocacy, peer-censured journals, had to support the IPCC reports and AGW. Other than in this tangential, roundabout manner of AGW support, Dessler’s findings do not support the GCM determination that climate sensitivity is 3ºC, and cannot support IPCC’s missing cloud feedback assessment.
In response, you might consider providing your references. How about one reference from each of (1) paleontological studies, (2) ice core records, and (3) other sources of temperature variation data. which you claim converge on the 3ºC figure for climate sensitivity? This is a rhetorical request because your claim is disjoint and implausible on its face.
Jeff,
Many thanks for this information. I note that Dessler covered 2000-10, and that his work relates to short term cloud effects. However, the fact remains that he provided a range for cloud feedback from -0.8 to +1.28, so this is, with all its limitations, a figure for a mainly positive feedback, and that is an improvement on no figure.
We know that cloud feedback has been an unknown.
I am puzzled that no-one has looked at the visual satellite Met Office images of clouds, to see how area and other patterns relate to global temperatures. I put this to Dessler, and he responded that the visuals were not sensitive enough. I suppose because he had been working with IR. But the global cloud area would give a good proxy for albedo would it not? We would need a programme that could read the whiteness of global daytime cloud cover, and pilot it by looking at the hottest and the coldest year in the satellite visual records.
I would like to collect refs for the classic studies that came up with the 3*C figure. As I said, I am a lay blogger, and it may be that some professionals here will simply be able to paste them in. I am surprised you do not already hold them Jeff, because in order to sustain a low CS figure, you are going to have to deconstruct every single one of them, are you not?
Richard Lawson 7/13/11, 5:23 am, Lindzen & Choi
You note that Dessler … provided a range for cloud feedback from -0.8 to +1.28, so this is, with all its limitations, a figure for a mainly positive feedback, and that is an improvement on no figure.
The problem is that Dessler’s cloud feedback is a multiplier of ΔR_cloud, his own proprietary parameter, based on his own proprietary definition of cloud feedback, and based on CERES and ECMWF interim data. IPCC claims to have determined that man’s CO2 emissions are going to cause a catastrophe, represented by a 3ºC rise in global temperature, and that this is now inevitable. IPCC made that determination in reliance on none of Dessler’s cloud feedback information, not even to the extent of arriving at a comparable feedback number. It doesn’t have a comparable feedback number because it doesn’t have a ΔR_cloud parameter.
IPCC owns AGW. It has taken over the relevant climatology, condensed it, and drawn the necessary conclusions. The public does not need to redo that condensing. Debunking IPCC’s conclusions as being erroneous and incomplete is sufficient to put that genie back in its bottle. We don’t need to rely on post-IPCC reanalysis or new, legally cumulative studies, meaning redundant studies that simply reinforce IPCC’s errors based in part on new data and new analysis, but in part repeating some the same errors. Dessler is not relevant to the task.
Lindzen and Choi (009, 2011), on the other hand, are highly relevant. IPCC predicted an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3ºC, with a band of about 1.5 to 4.5ºC. According to L&C, evidence from satellite measurements indicates that the ECS is likely to be 0.7ºC, well outside IPCC’s band. From a scientific standpoint, this is ultimate evidence tending to invalidate IPCC’s model. It is devastating, especially because the ECS range is the only testable prediction discovered to date from the AGW model. L&C (2011) supports the conclusion that IPCC’s model is invalid.
You ask, global cloud area would give a good proxy for albedo would it not? IPCC was correct when it answered this question strongly in the affirmative. See AR4, ¶1.5.2, quoted above at 12:23 am. Also as answered there, IPCC has been unable to predict global cloud cover. Even if IPCC relied on Dessler’s method, it would need to connect anthropogenic CO2 and Dessler’s sources to AGW.
You wondered about the satellite visuals, and part of the answer to why they are not used is the same critical missing link between cloud cover and ACO2. As IPCC said, the link between cloud cover and surface temperature is known based on the simplest theoretical grounds. IPCC just hasn’t been able to put that into its models, nor been able to link cloud cover to ACO2. You can consider both cloud cover and atmospheric CO2 to be excellent proxies for global average surface temperature, but that leaves global warming an open question.
You claimed three links exist: (1) paleo studies to ECS, (2) ice cores to ECS, and (3) other temperature studies to ECS. ECS is not a parameter found in nature. It is a derived parameter from the output of GCMs of all varieties. Your three studies, paleo, ice core, and other temperature, are not global climate models. They are not capable of providing an ECS, of predicting a temperature response to CO2 emissions. These records contain nothing to deconstruct, but instead they lead to the construct of some important models.
I have on hand the Vostok record, which satisfies both type (1) paleo and (2) ice core. It includes temperatures back about 450 kyrs, so in part satisfies (3) other temperatures. You can see what I did with it by clicking on my name and reading the paper, The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. It shows CO2 responding to Henry’s Law of solubility with a lag of about one millennium.
The Vostok record also shows that the present day temperature anomaly of 0ºC has about 2º to 4ºC to go to match the previous maxima over the past half million years. This means that the present day warm temperature has about 3ºC to go from natural causes, the same as the ECS prediction due to man’s CO2 emissions. We can’t be sure of the date because the Vostok resolution is only about 1300 years. These observations also mean that IPCC erred to zero natural variations in temperature and CO2 as of 1750, when it initializes its GCMs. This error causes IPCC wrongly to attribute on-going natural rises to man, and wrongly to rely on correlation for cause, i.e., Hockey Sticks.
The second major temperature record I use is HadCRUT3, which completes your suggestion of data of type (3). This record shows that Earth’s global average surface temperature follows the Sun to approximately the same accuracy as IPCC’s smoothed version of that temperature record. It also measures the amplification that exists in Earth’s climate system, confirming the results of Stott, et al., (2003) and Tung, et al., (2008). The amplification is about 18ºC per percent rise in the long term, lagged, best fit slopes. The lags are primarily 134 and secondarily 46 years, limited in part by the fact that the record from thermometers is only about 140 years long. To see the results, see Solar Global Warming, SGW in my Journal. IPCC underestimates solar forcing because it failed to simulate the amplification. It is known to be from clouds based on the simplest theoretical grounds.
These results contradict the AGW model, and support instead the model that Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun and regulated by clouds. To the extent that AGW might exist, it is not measurable.
Hi Jeff
You appeal to Lindzen & Choi 2011. But Rob Dekker has produced a very strong critique of their methods on this very page. For ease of reference, I paste it here:
“The Lindzen and Choi method of doing FLUX/SST analysis (called “lead and lag” by Lindzen) seems to have a (strong?) bias towards negative feedback.
Here is why :
L&C analyzes fragments of SST changes that are either rising or falling, and then measures the FLUX response over the same period.
No problem there, has been done many times before by numerous other scientists.
The difference is that Lindzen is looking back and forth (lead and lag) in time, and finds the FLUX response that has the highest correlation with the SST change.
First remember that the FLUX (response) has significant noise on it. Let’s note that if you do not look back and forth in time (no lead or lag), then on average the FLUX response will tell you the average FLUX response to that SST change.
But also remember that the FLUX response with the highest correlation with SST will always be the response that starts at one extreme and ends at the other extreme. All other responses will correlate less, since they will show opposite slopes at the start and/or end points, which obviously don’t correlate well with the SST.
So, if you are allowed to look back and forth in time through that noisy signal, you have a high chance of finding a lead or lag time where the FLUX response is larger (and thus correlates better) than the no-lag response alone.
So Lindzen and Choi method will (for each fragment of SST analysed) find the lead or lag time where the FLUX response is the largest !
When the FLUX response is larger for a certain SST change, the calculated feedback will be lower, and thus this method has a bias towards lowering the feedback calculated from the ERBE data.
Let me note that the effect (bias) will be stronger the more lead or lag time is allowed, since there will be more start and end-points in the noise to consider, and the largest response will correlate the best.
So for short lag times and strong negative feedback (large FLUX response), Lindzen’s method will be approximately correct. But for no-feedback or positive feedback the lead-lag bias will be very significant.
In fact Lindzen mentions himself that his method works best for large negative feedbacks .
He also mentions that his method works less good for small feedbacks (and consequently) large lag times, which, as I showed above is consistent with increased bias.
Interestingly enough, he does not show what feedback parameter number he obtains for a system with no feedback or positive feedback, in which case the lead-lag-noise bias will be greatest.
Needless to say that maybe Lindzen drew some very premature conclusions when he discards other scientists’ work (Trenberth et al, Dessler et al) who do NOT use his (biased) lead-lag-correlate method.
Now I have not quantified this bias yet, but this bias should be very easily reproducible using Lindzen’s (Spencer’s) “simple model” simulation,
Interesting ?”
– Rob Dekker
Please deal with his critique.
Thanks.
Richard
Richard Lawson, 7/14/11, 1:51 pm, lindzen & choi
Richard,
I, too, have reservations about L&C’s method. When I write about their work, I chose my words carefully not to say conclusively that they have invalidated the IPCC model. L&C’s work is laudable as the opening shot in a salvo to make a scientifically essential test of the AGW equilibrium climate sensitivity prediction.
First, L&C introduced a model for feedback, one different than those used by IPCC, but one founded in system science (either control system theory or estimation theory). Their model is elementary, with the Feedback, F, being a constant. A second thing L&C have done is to use the relationship between input and output, as represented graphically in a scatter diagram, to investigate the relationship between the two. IPCC misses many opportunities to use this technique. My criticism is that L&C should have explored relationships between input and output other than a straight line fit.
L&C seem to base their analysis on the belief that ACO2 is a cause of the observed temperature. Their analysis should cover the eventualities that the ACO2 effect is unmeasurably small, and that total CO2 is a lagging proxy for the temperature. These are both true in my model for climate.
And in the last analysis, we must convert SST to GAST to fit AGW.
Dekker points out that L&C introduce an examination of lead and lag between SST and CO2 flux. I have a pair of criticisms on this point. One is that L&C should have examined much longer leads and lags than one to five months. The relationship is likely on the order of one hundred years to a millennium. The other is that the best way to assess leads and lags is by computing the correlation function, not just by examining a handful of leads and lags.
L&C have broken some ice, and they are headed in the right direction.