(cross posted from Coyote Blog)
For a while, I have criticized the practice both in climate and economics of using computer models to increase our apparent certainty about natural phenomenon. We take shaky assumptions and guesstimates of certain constants and natural variables and plug them into computer models that produce projections with triple-decimal precision. We then treat the output with a reverence that does not match the quality of the inputs.
I have had trouble explaining this sort of knowledge laundering and finding precisely the right words to explain it. But this week I have been presented with an excellent example from climate science, courtesy of Roger Pielke, Sr. This is an excerpt from a recent study trying to figure out if a high climate sensitivity to CO2 can be reconciled with the lack of ocean warming over the last 10 years (bold added).
“Observations of the sea water temperature show that the upper ocean has not warmed since 2003. This is remarkable as it is expected the ocean would store that the lion’s share of the extra heat retained by the Earth due to the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The observation that the upper 700 meter of the world ocean have not warmed for the last eight years gives rise to two fundamental questions:
- What is the probability that the upper ocean does not warm for eight years as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise?
- As the heat has not been not stored in the upper ocean over the last eight years, where did it go instead?
These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough. We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.”
Pielke goes on to deconstruct the study, but just compare the two bolded statements. First, that there is not sufficiently extensive and accurate observational data to test a hypothesis. BUT, then we will create a model, and this model is validated against this same observational data. Then the model is used to draw all kinds of conclusions about the problem being studied.
This is the clearest, simplest example of certainty laundering I have ever seen. If there is not sufficient data to draw conclusions about how a system operates, then how can there be enough data to validate a computer model which, in code, just embodies a series of hypotheses about how a system operates?
A model is no different than a hypothesis embodied in code. If I have a hypothesis that the average width of neckties in this year’s Armani collection drives stock market prices, creating a computer program that predicts stock market prices falling as ties get thinner does nothing to increase my certainty of this hypothesis (though it may be enough to get me media attention). The model is merely a software implementation of my original hypothesis. In fact, the model likely has to embody even more unproven assumptions than my hypothesis, because in addition to assuming a causal relationship, it also has to be programmed with specific values for this correlation.
This is not just a climate problem. The White House studies on the effects of the stimulus were absolutely identical. They had a hypothesis that government deficit spending would increase total economic activity. After they spent the money, how did they claim success? Did they measure changes to economic activity through observational data? No, they had a model that was programmed with the hypothesis that government spending increased job creation, ran the model, and pulled a number out that said, surprise, the stimulus created millions of jobs (despite falling employment). And the press reported it like it was a real number.
Postscript: I did not get into this in the original article, but the other mistake the study seems to make is to validate the model on a variable that is irrelevant to its conclusions. In this case, the study seems to validate the model by saying it correctly simulates past upper ocean heat content numbers (you remember, the ones that are too few and too inaccurate to validate a hypothesis). But the point of the paper seems to be to understand if what might be excess heat (if we believe the high sensitivity number for CO2) is going into the deep ocean or back into space. But I am sure I can come up with a number of combinations of assumptions to match the historic ocean heat content numbers. The point is finding the right one, and to do that requires validation against observations for deep ocean heat and radiation to space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Risks_and_Impacts_of_Global_Warming.png
They call it the burning embers diagram. This ties in with the world negotiations of limiting temperature increase to 2 C. By this diagram, the serious problems are just beginning. If we let loose and to hell with carbon restrictions, 6 C is a problem for everyone. By this diagram it could be a small problem or could be the disaster that you say it could never become.
Remember the Bush-Cheney administration signed off on this. They could of vetoed it if they wanted to.
Both your numbers of 10% and .5 C low. What is your source?
Renewable Guy:
You would be wrong on this one Malcolm. The IPCC is forcasting a warmer planet due to increase in GHG’s mainly co2. Even the simplest of models show this. The models get the forcast wrong if they leave out co2. I’ve shown that many times before. The trend is correct with co2 included and the trend is warming. They have made that very clear. The IPCC has come to a consensus on 3C warming for a doubling of co2. No less than 1.5C and cannot rule out 10C. — That the models get the forecast wrong if they leave out their figures for CO2 does not mean their figures for CO2 are right. The consensus is not science.
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. — If you ask me the same question, I will answer yes. You said that “97% of peer reviewed climatologists agree humans are the cause of this change in climate”. The question asked by the survey asks if humans are one of the causes of this change, not if they are the only cause, or the most significant cause. If you meant to say that humans are one of the causes, nobody disagrees with you. If you meant to say that humans are the most significant cause, you haven’t shown that. So, please stop citing this 97% figure because it either does not mean what you think it means or it is not backed up.
This is the simple explanation. — I asked you to prove that the extra warming predicted by the models that we don’t see is in the oceans. Your link does not contain anything resembling proof. It’s just a couple of paragraphs with no real statements, plus a nice picture of a coral reef.
I will reply to other points later.
Renewable
The 97 % number is meaningless because of the softball questions the survey asked.
If they asked meaningful questions like” Is mankind facing catastrophe from global warming if nothing is done.
I’ll bet less than 50 % would agree.
We will never know.
Renewable
“Our model doesn’t track observations without CO2” is the lamest excuse for believing CO2 is doing anything !
.
Their models don’t include ocean currents which were pretty obviously responsible for the 1978-1998 warming. While they do include solar they don’t include Gamma rays which are thought to influence cloud formation and hence temperature. Dozens of other important parameters aren’t included but these are the 500 Lb gorilla’s. Not including ocean currents assures us that the models will predict far more warming over the next 30 years than will actually happen.
.
Even what they do model are approximations and parametrization not based on first principals and so are pretty crude and inaccurate.
Renewable
To take a survey with 2 innocuous questions written in such a way that Drs Christy, Lindzen and I could answer YES to and extrapolating that to mean that 97 % of climate scientists believe in CAGW is brain damaged.
.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire
.
CO2 causes
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow
Less snow
Heat waves
Intense cold
Floods
Droughts
More extreme weather
Less extreme weather
Melting ice
Freezing water
More hurricanes
Fewer hurricanes
More cloud
Fewer clouds
Stratospheric warming
Stratospheric cooling
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
.
How many of the above do real scientists believe in ?
.
I’ll bet very few.
netdr:
Renewable
“Our model doesn’t track observations without CO2″ is the lamest excuse for believing CO2 is doing anything !
#######################
No. It means the model does not match observations in hindcasting. If the model has to be perfect before you can use it, then its like throwing the baby out with the bath water. A lot of good useful information can be gleaned from a model.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
No model – whether a wind tunnel model for designing aircraft, or a climate model for projecting global warming – perfectly reproduces the system being modeled. Such inherently imperfect models may nevertheless produce useful results.
(((((In this context, GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century.))))[21]
.
Their models don’t include ocean currents which were pretty obviously responsible for the 1978-1998 warming. While they do include solar they don’t include Gamma rays which are thought to influence cloud formation and hence temperature. Dozens of other important parameters aren’t included but these are the 500 Lb gorilla’s. Not including ocean currents assures us that the models will predict far more warming over the next 30 years than will actually happen.
.
Even what they do model are approximations and parametrization not based on first principals and so are pretty crude and inaccurate.
###################
Accurate enough to know within acceptable uncertainty what more co2 will do to our future.
netdr:
Renewable
To take a survey with 2 innocuous questions written in such a way that Drs Christy, Lindzen and I could answer YES to and extrapolating that to mean that 97 % of climate scientists believe in CAGW is brain damaged.
########################
You haven’t read the whole survey. There are many other groups with much lower acceptance of AGW. Another point is the inside scientists studying the material have a much higher acceptance rate than those outside.
The role of co2 is clear to the inside scientists because they have studied it the most. Somehow you just can’t seem to accept that. That’s why you aren’t really a lukewarmer. You can’t really wrap your head around the fact that there is a great deal of consensus amongst the scientists.
As for Lindzen Christy and Spencer, they are basically seen for what they. Science lobbyists for the carbon industry. Can you wrap you head around that one. These peer reviewed scientists don’t agree with the carbon trio.
.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire
.
CO2 causes
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow yes
Less snow yes
Heat waves yes
Intense cold no
Floods yes
Droughts yes
More extreme weather yes
Less extreme weather ?
Melting ice yes
Freezing water ?
More hurricanes ?
Fewer hurricanes ?
More cloud no
Fewer clouds yes
Stratospheric warming ?
Stratospheric cooling yes
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
.
How many of the above do real scientists believe in ?
.
I’ll bet very few.
#############################
peer reviewed studies take time of which the scientists are doing over the last 150 years. Within the uncertainty levels there is a 95% chance of the earth getting warmer with more emissions of GHG;s
Abstract:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.
More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization:
Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive,
##################
Hmmmm anyone here fit into this one?
#################
and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.
We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality:
The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments;
and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.
#################
In reading other discussions online conservatives are described as tribal in their response to AGW or CAGW.
Chris Matthews described democrats as falling in love with who they vote for and republicans fall in line. A different social response to the world.
Malcolm:
This is the simple explanation. — I asked you to prove that the extra warming predicted by the models that we don’t see is in the oceans. Your link does not contain anything resembling proof. It’s just a couple of paragraphs with no real statements, plus a nice picture of a coral reef.
I will reply to other points later.
##############################
I started with something simple and it was done by an authority who understands the principles. Its also at a level for those reading whose science comprehension isn’t at our level.
If your own science comprehension was higher, you would’nt be asking me this question. Its a very basic understanding. Water is denser than air.
Renewable Guy:
I started with something simple and it was done by an authority who understands the principles. Its also at a level for those reading whose science comprehension isn’t at our level. If your own science comprehension was higher, you would’nt be asking me this question. Its a very basic understanding. Water is denser than air. — So, that’s your proof that the extra warming predicted by the models that we don’t see is in the oceans?
The ongoing debate re CAGW is interesting, but irrelavent. Without a viable alternative energy source, there is no option but to move north as the earth warms (assuming the AGW stuff is correct). The Canadians, Scandinavians, and Siberians would love it!
Every existing alternative energy scheme is only valid if it is on a relatively small scale and is government subsidized. The two most prominent schemes (wind and solar) fall apart without government subsidies. If they expand to where dedicated backup or energy storage is needed, they collapse completely. Biofuels are a joke, as land area is limited and the fuel needed to grow the crops and convert them to fuel is near, or exceeds, the fuel produced.
We need to put first things first. Find a viable alternative energy source FIRST. Then, and ONLY THEN, consider dumping our fossil fuels.
I am all for climate research. However, basing HUGE IMPACT decisions on computer models, which everyone agrees are full of fudge factors and are no doubt missing many variables we are not even aware of, is madness.
Renewable
No model – whether a wind tunnel model for designing aircraft, or a climate model for projecting global warming – perfectly reproduces the system being modeled. Such inherently imperfect models may nevertheless produce useful results.
*************
We are asked to pass taxes which are obviously damaging to our economy [and the world economy as well] to avoid warming which is only present in the models. [Observations fail to show any since 1998.]
.
So using a failed model as a guide to policy decisions involving much expense and pain is brain damaged thinking.
.
If I created a model of an airplane which predicted it would behave in one way and it behaved the opposite I would fix the model [but I wouldn’t take actions based on it until the fix was carefully verified] .
.
The airplane model can be verified and fixed in weeks or months but climate models take 20 to 30 years to verify. The rate of learning is glacially slow by comparison. The current crop haven’t verified at all well. They are in the “diddle a few parameters and try again ” stage where they will remain for the next 30 to 50 years.
.
Climate science isn’t like medicine or electronics where experiments can be run in a laboratory and results available in weeks at worst. Doctors can even do “double blind” experiments. We don’t have a spare earth to experiment with and hundreds of unknown variables interact in a chaotic fashion, so teasing out the effect of any single variable is almost impossible. The observers are so non objective that prying their science away from their near religious fervor is impossible.
.
I laugh at the people who liken climate science to medicine saying “If a Doctor said you needed an operation …… ” As I have shown that is insulting to the doctor.
.
We know thousands of times more accurately the effect of various medicines and the symptoms and cures of various diseases because doctors can “practice” many times. We have one earth and our rate of accumulating climate knowledge is very very slow for the reasons state above.
.
Climate science is more like Astrology than medicine and it is an insult to the doctors to equate them !
Renewable
Have you ever read your Horoscope ? I have and it was interesting and it seems that whatever happens has been predicted. The predictions are so general they fit millions of people and mean everything and nothing.
.
Alarmists predict everything and when any normal thing happens they claim victory, in a huge planet some pretty abnormal things are normally happening somewhere:
.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire
.
CO2 causes
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow yes
Less snow yes
Heat waves yes
Intense cold no
Floods yes
Droughts yes
More extreme weather yes
Less extreme weather ?
Melting ice yes
Freezing water ?
More hurricanes ?
Fewer hurricanes ?
More cloud no
Fewer clouds yes
Stratospheric warming ?
Stratospheric cooling yes
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
.
How many of the above do real scientists believe in ? Have they no shame ?
.
Malcolm:
Renewable Guy:
I started with something simple and it was done by an authority who understands the principles. Its also at a level for those reading whose science comprehension isn’t at our level. If your own science comprehension was higher, you would’nt be asking me this question. Its a very basic understanding. Water is denser than air. — So, that’s your proof that the extra warming predicted by the models that we don’t see is in the oceans?
##############################
Show me what you are made of Malcolm. I’m growing tired of your position. I’ll let you show me different if you want.
Ted Rado:
THis seems to fit you and Net quite well. Your identity with the established way of what is now. The information of science demands change. Which you have shown to be very resistant to.
#####################################
http://www.grist.org/people/David+Roberts
There’s a study running soon in the journal Global Environmental Change called “Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States.” It analyzes poll and survey data from the last 10 years and finds that … are you sitting down? … conservative white men are far more likely to deny the threat of climate change than other people.
OK, that’s no surprise to anyone who’s been awake over the last decade. But the paper goes beyond that to put forward some theories about why conservative white men (CWM) are so loathe to accept climate change. The explanation is some mix of the following, all of which overlap in various ways:
First there’s the “white male effect” — generally speaking, white males are less concerned with a variety of risks. This probably has to do with the fact that they are less exposed to risk than other demographics, what with running things and all.
Then, as Chris Mooney notes, there’s the “social dominance orientation” of conservatives, who see social life as following the law of the jungle. One’s choice is to dominate or be dominated; that is the natural order of things. Such folk are leery of climate change solutions premised on fairness or egalitarianism.
Then there are the well-understood “system-justifying tendencies” of conservatives. The authors explain that conservatives …
… strongly display tendencies to justify and defend the current social and economic system. Conservatives dislike change and uncertainty and attempt to simplify complexity. Further, conservative white males have disproportionately occupied positions of power within our economic system. Given the expansive challenge that climate change poses to the industrial capitalist economic system, it should not be surprising that conservative white males’ strong system-justifying attitudes would be triggered to deny climate change.
Finally, there’s “identity-protective cognition,” a notion borrowed from Dan Kahan at Yale. (See this PDF.) Here’s how Kahan and colleagues sum it up
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these ‘fingerprints’ of anthropogenic global warming are present.
Surface Temperature Change
More warming at night than day
Stratospheric Temperature Change
Tropopause Height
Upper Atmosphere Temperature Change
Ocean Heat Content
Sea Level Pressure
Precipitation
Infrared Radiation
Increase in downward longwave radiation
Malcolm:
Show me what you are made of Malcolm. I’m growing tired of your position. I’ll let you show me different if you want. — I am not sure what you are asking me to do. Netdr said that with the unreasonably large estimates of the climate sensitivity parameter used by IPCC we should have had much more warming than we had to date. You said that ‘It’s the thermal lag of the oceans’. I asked you to prove this, three times already, and you continue to evade. So, can you cite a paper that proves that the extra heat is in the oceans by citing measured, verified numbers? Either link such a paper or admit that there is no definitive research that allows one to ultimately conclude that ‘It’s the thermal lag’. This is my position, a very simple one. I don’t care if it makes you tired. You keep throwing statement after statement which are untrue or misleading. Stop doing that.
Renewable Guy says: “Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming.”
Renewable: have you counted how many people on this board who are interacting with you dispute that some warming has occurred that is at least partially attributable to CO2 emissions?
My count is zero. The question in contension is whether the moderate warming that has actually been observed will greatly accelerate in the future so as to create catostrophic consequences. Focus on that question.
Where do you get the idea that I identify with the establishment? My friends would find that statement very funny. You seem to be saying that anyone that doesn’t buy the CAGW thing lock, stock, and barrel, is some sort of neanderthal. The day will never come (I certainly hope) when we all fall in lock step behind the “experts”. There will always be free discussion of new ideas. That’s how you validate or invalidate them.
People have been searching for energy sources since the dawn of time. Many ideas have been investigated long before the USG started pushing money out the door. If there ia a good idea, engineers and businessmen will pursue it. If it not a good idea, they will not waste money on it but search elsewhere.
Inventors, engineers, scientists, and businessmen have fathered virtually all the modern stuff we are surrounded with without USG intervention. If someone has a technically feasible, economically viable idea, it will be pursued vigorously. To suggest that we agree to pursue nonsense so as to meet with your approval, or so as not to seem negative, is hilarious.
Another point: It seems to me that if some USG official decides what to pursue, the chances of finding new energy sources are far less than if left to the business, technical, and research community. The USG certainly does not have a good track record compared to competitive private enterprise. Effort diverted to nonsense is not available to pursue promising leads. Thus, we lose twice. Once with the money we waste, and secondly we lose what might have been fruitfully done with the wasted resources. I am all for free enterprise searching for better ways rather than to follow USG diktat.
Free debate is part of scientific and technical progress. If what you are pushing cannot stand up to questioning and discussion, you might want to consider that your idea is no good. I am sure that historically, for every successful idea, there were hundreds of failures. Hopefully, these are found out and abandoned before too much money is wasted. The procedures to accomplish this weeding out are well established in the engineering world, but seem to be completely lacking in the USG. I personally have never shied away from discussion of my ideas. If they are wrong, the sooner we find out the better.
By the way, I have REPEATEDLY explained the problems with current alternative energy schemes. You never reply except to say “the Spaniards are doing it, so it must be right”. Merely stating that climate scientists, Spaniards, or whoever say it’s Ok is not a convincing argument.
The facts are: 1) The CAGW thing is based on models full of fudge factors, are missing some variables, and do not agree well with real data. There is much dispute over the whole idea. This research and discussion should continue until there is a convincing outcome (not just a majority vote). 2) There are currently no alternative energy schemes that are viable on a large scale. For example, wind and solar require energy storage or backup. Therefore, we have nowhere to go if we substantially do away with fossil fuel use, except to move north. 3) To plunge shead with CO2 reduction absent Chinese and Indain participation would result in the demise of our industrial economy.
On a personal note, I have no idea whether the CAGW thing is correct or not, although there are enough questions to cause me to be doubtful. The consequences of fully implementing it (80% CO2 reduction by 2050) are so severe that I am not prepared to jump on board. Let’s continue to investigate before we do something stupid.
Now, I’m always wrong because I am a white male! What a brilliant stroke of debating technique. Perhaps the next time I get into a debate with my lady, I will tell her she is wrong because she is a white female. Then I will not only be wrong because I am a white male, but because I am a white chauvenist male! Wow! What a strong set of arguments. I should join a debating society.
Renewable
PaulD nailed it.
” Have you counted how many people on this board who are interacting with you dispute that some warming has occurred that is at least partially attributable to CO2 emissions?
My count is zero. The question in contension is whether the moderate warming that has actually been observed will greatly accelerate in the future so as to create catostrophic consequences. Focus on that question.”
***********************
It is possible that some of the warming since 1860 is due to CO2. The fact that the warming began before significant CO2 was emitted tells me that it can’t all be.
I also think the fact that we are at the peak of the current PDO cycle accounts for some more of it. It is suspicious that the 1978 to 1998 warming occurred right when it should have occurred due to ocean currents.
So what is left ? [.01 or .1 or .2 ° C ?]
Why should we believe this will accelerate greatly in the future ? As you noted recent studies have found that the missing heat is in outer space not in some magical “pipeline” waiting to cause warming in the future.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
And Dr Mann’s latest attempt to explain the lack of warming.
So why should we believe in massive future warming ?
Malcolm:
Malcolm:
Show me what you are made of Malcolm. I’m growing tired of your position. I’ll let you show me different if you want. — I am not sure what you are asking me to do. Netdr said that with the unreasonably large estimates of the climate sensitivity parameter used by IPCC we should have had much more warming than we had to date. You said that ‘It’s the thermal lag of the oceans’. I asked you to prove this, three times already, and you continue to evade. So, can you cite a paper that proves that the extra heat is in the oceans by citing measured, verified numbers? Either link such a paper or admit that there is no definitive research that allows one to ultimately conclude that ‘It’s the thermal lag’. This is my position, a very simple one. I don’t care if it makes you tired. You keep throwing statement after statement which are untrue or misleading. Stop doing that.
#################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-the-40-year-delay-between-cause-and-effect.html
Can’t say that I’m going to follow your rules. I find you lazy and petulant. You can also do some of your own digging and then talk about it.
The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans. Consider a saucepan of water placed on a gas stove. Although the flame has a temperature measured in hundreds of degrees C, the water takes a few minutes to reach boiling point. This simple analogy explains climate lag. The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere. The time that it takes to warm up is measured in decades. Because of the difficulty in quantifying the rate at which the warm upper layers of the ocean mix with the cooler deeper waters, there is significant variation in estimates of climate lag. A paper by James Hansen and others [iii] estimates the time required for 60% of global warming to take place in response to increased emissions to be in the range of 25 to 50 years. The mid-point of this is 37.5 which I have rounded to 40 years.
################
So Malcomb. What haven’t I done this time? Maybe you can show me what you know. What do you know?
Pauld:
Renewable Guy says: “Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming.”
Renewable: have you counted how many people on this board who are interacting with you dispute that some warming has occurred that is at least partially attributable to CO2 emissions?
My count is zero. The question in contension is whether the moderate warming that has actually been observed will greatly accelerate in the future so as to create catostrophic consequences. Focus on that question.
########################
It’s easier to look at small single things at a time. I believe the answer lies in positive feedbacks. The earth is 70% water. As the oceans heat up we are in a point of no return for more than a thousand years. I can list the consequences that the scientists say come with the temperature increase. Don’t know the speed of it.
That’s why models are used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Risks_and_Impacts_of_Global_Warming.png
The higher the global average temperature increase the stronger the C in CAGW. I’m sure you have seen this before.
##############################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Temperature_changes
This article breaks down some of the impacts of climate change according to different levels of future global warming. This way of describing impacts has, for instance, been used in the IPCC’s Assessment Reports on climate change.[8] The instrumental temperature record shows global warming of around 0.6°C over the entire 20th century.[9] The future level of global warming is uncertain, but a wide range of estimates (projections) have been made.[10] The IPCC’s “SRES” scenarios have been frequently used to make projections of future climate change.[11] Climate models using the six SRES “marker” scenarios suggest future warming of 1.1 to 6.4°C by the end of the 21st century (above average global temperatures over the 1980 to 1999 time period).[12] The range in temperature projections partly reflects different projections of future social and economic development (e.g., economic growth, population level, energy policies), which in turn affects projections of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The range also reflects uncertainty in the response of the climate system to past and future GHG emissions (measured by the climate sensitivity).
########################
From the projections of the scientist if we reach 6 C average increase in earth’s temperature we are in for a rougher way to live, along with huge expenditures in infrastructure change.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/02/23/203730/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.
[Note: That rise is compared to 1990 levels. So you can add at least 0.5 °C and 1.0 °F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]
Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.
###################
WIth a Ted Rado point of view, don’t change unless you have to, our gooses are pretty much cooked. It will be hot and we will reach the IPCC worst case scenario.
#######################
For the no policy scenario, the researchers concluded that there is now a nine percent chance (about one in 11 odds) that the global average surface temperature would increase by more than 7°C (12.6°F) by the end of this century, compared with only a less than one percent chance (one in 100 odds) that warming would be limited to below 3°C (5.4°F).
##########################
Like you have heard before, it is shaking dice. By the MIT models under business as usual, the positive feedbacks are going to take off.
This is from the same university as the all mighty Richard Lindzen, who says climate sensitivity is low and has to retract his paper for correction because of serious flaws in his work.
Ted Rado:
Now, I’m always wrong because I am a white male! What a brilliant stroke of debating technique. Perhaps the next time I get into a debate with my lady, I will tell her she is wrong because she is a white female. Then I will not only be wrong because I am a white male, but because I am a white chauvenist male! Wow! What a strong set of arguments. I should join a debating society.
########################
This group ignors the science and feels put upon by society. RIghtfully so. Annnnnnnnd hates the science because its knowledge demands fundamental change. The conservative climatologists know what is coming in CAGW.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
And Dr Mann’s latest attempt to explain the lack of warming.
So why should we believe in massive future warming ?
#####################################
According to more than one critical scientist, this was an intentionally wrong paper. Fake science especially for your consumption.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Net:
It is possible that some of the warming since 1860 is due to CO2. The fact that the warming began before significant CO2 was emitted tells me that it can’t all be.
I also think the fact that we are at the peak of the current PDO cycle accounts for some more of it. It is suspicious that the 1978 to 1998 warming occurred right when it should have occurred due to ocean currents.
So what is left ? [.01 or .1 or .2 ° C ?]
#########################
Sources?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Chris McGrath says:
29 Jul 2011 at 5:23 PM
Andrew Dessler seems to have summed the goal of this publication up well in a comment published on Climate Progress:
“[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take [Roy Spencer] seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.”
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/#more-282584
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/articleimages.php?id=12851&iframe=true&width=378&height=403
MIT brings it down to a single graphic. On the right side is business as usual with a range of 3 thru 7C. The probabilities are discussed above.
The left graphic gives us a milder climate change to adapt to.
We will have to adapt to climate change. That is a given. The higher the average climate temperature rises, the more extremes we will have to adapt to. Not everyone will die, just some.
Renewable Guy:
[URL to skepticalscience snipped] — Good, here is a different paper that includes a graph of actual measurements for 2003 through 2008:
http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152
The graph looks like this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog-300×189.jpg
We can talk about whether or not it makes sense to display a linear fit for 4.5 years worth of data, but you can see that the amount of heat is going down with your own eyes.
So?
Renewable Guy:
This is just too funny to let pass. Your words:
“The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. [Note: That rise is compared to 1990 levels. So you can add at least 0.5 °C and 1.0 °F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.] Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm. ### WIth a Ted Rado point of view, don’t change unless you have to, our gooses are pretty much cooked. It will be hot and we will reach the IPCC worst case scenario.”
So what, Ted Rado has to change his point of view (which is: please show we can really live off these ‘new’ energy sources before shutting down ‘old’ ones, perfectly sensible if you ask me), because someone, somewhere adjusted their model, saying “it’s going to be alright this time, folks, we are going to hit it now” and that model increased the magnitude of doom it predicts?
Laughable.
Renewable- “According to more than one critical scientist, this was an intentionally wrong paper. Fake science especially for your consumption.”
Really? Give us nonbelievers just one reason why we should believe anything from a website which censors anyone who posts something that does not agree with the party line.
“MIT brings it down to a single graphic. On the right side is business as usual with a range of 3 thru 7C. The probabilities are discussed above.
The left graphic gives us a milder climate change to adapt to.
We will have to adapt to climate change. That is a given. The higher the average climate temperature rises, the more extremes we will have to adapt to. Not everyone will die, just some.”
No GCM has shown skill in predicting long-term climate trends. Pielke Sr. has written numerous papers on this topic as have others or maybe Dessler, Romm, or Schmidt don’t take Pielke Sr. seriously, either
Skeptic’s Small Cloud Study Renews Climate Rancor
By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON July 30, 2011 (AP)
A study on how much heat in Earth’s atmosphere is caused by cloud cover has heated up the climate change blogosphere even as it is dismissed by many scientists.
Several mainstream climate scientists call the study’s conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared. The study in the journal Remote Sensing questions the accuracy of climate computer models and got attention when a lawyer for the conservative Heartland Institute wrote an opinion piece on it.
The author of the scientific study is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville, a prominent climate skeptic. But even he says some bloggers are overstating what the research found. Spencer’s study is based on satellite data from 2000 to 2010 and is one of a handful of studies he’s done that are part of an ongoing debate among a few scientists.
His research looked at cause and effect of clouds and warming. Contrary to the analysis of a majority of studies, his found that for the past decade, variations in clouds seemed more a cause of warming than an effect. More than anything, he said, his study found that mainstream research and models don’t match the 10 years of data he examined. Spencer’s study concludes the question of clouds’ role in heating “remains an unsolved problem.”
Spencer, who uses what he calls a simple model without looking at ocean heat or El Nino effects, finds fault with the more complicated models often run by mainstream climate scientists.
At least 10 climate scientists reached by The Associated Press found technical or theoretical faults with Spencer’s study or its conclusions. They criticized the short time period he studied and his failure to consider the effects of the ocean and other factors. They also note that the paper appears in a journal that mostly deals with the nuts-and-bolts of satellite data and not interpreting the climate.
“This is a very bad paper and is demonstrably wrong,” said Richard Somerville, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. “It is getting a lot of attention only because of noise in the blogosphere.”
Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what’s being written about Spencer’s study by nonscientists “has no basis in reality.”
****”Ted Rado has to change his point of view (which is: please show we can really live off these ‘new’ energy sources before shutting down ‘old’ ones, perfectly sensible if you ask me),”
That is perfectly sensible. Unfortunately, that is not Ted’ POV. Ted wants to shut down invention BEFORE we invent these ‘new’ energy sources. He wants to give up before we’ve had the chance to develop them.
renewable guy:
Net:
It is possible that some of the warming since 1860 is due to CO2. The fact that the warming began before significant CO2 was emitted tells me that it can’t all be.
I also think the fact that we are at the peak of the current PDO cycle accounts for some more of it. It is suspicious that the 1978 to 1998 warming occurred right when it should have occurred due to ocean currents.
So what is left ? [.01 or .1 or .2 ° C ?]
#########################
Sources?
**********
I have posted them many times.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/to:1998/trend
There have been 3 periods of warming since records have been kept.
[1860 to 1880; 1910 to 1940; and 1978 to 1998]
The 1978 to 1998 period isn’t in any way special or unnatural.
As I said warming started long before CO2 emissions were significant.
Sunspots have been slowly building since records have been kept. [1860 or so]
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
Of course the sun cannot cause warming can it ?
The 1978 to 1998 positive PDO cycle.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/nasa-says-pdo-switched-to-cold-phase/
Notice that the PDO was almost continuously positive from 1978 to 1998 but that couldn’t cause warming could it ?
Notice that 1999 and 2000 the PDO was negative and these were cool years.
[But that is just a coincidence isn’t it ?]
From 1998 to present the positive PDO and negative PDO periods have been roughly equal and temperatures have gone sideways.
[But that too is just a coincidence isn’t it ?]
As I said, if these natural sources of warming were subtracted there would be almost no warming left over to blame on CO2.
Yeah, Everyone’s Opinion is Equally Valid in Science:
********
That is a profound name.
Yes everyone’s opinion is equally valid if backed up by a valid set of testable observations.
Even Einstein believed that to be true.
When Albert Einstein was
informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, ‘If I were wrong,
then one would have been enough!’ (Hawking, 1988); however,
that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
of testable results.
So far the CAGW hysteria is short on testable results.
By predicting everything they predict nothing. Saying that every weather event is climate is silly.
So inadvertently your name speaks a profound truth.
Yeah, Everyone’s Opinion is Equally Valid in Science:
**********
You have without knowing it hit on one of the profound reasons science works.
If it were otherwise the upstart Einstein could never have challenged to wise and venerable Newton.
In fact the established scientists who held that the earth was the center of everything would still be the prevailing theory.
So you are 100 % correct !
“Everyone’s Opinion is Equally Valid in Science”
That is why it is called “science” not “politics” or something else.
Yeah…:
At least 10 climate scientists reached by The Associated Press found technical or theoretical faults with Spencer’s study or its conclusions. They criticized the short time period he studied and his failure to consider the effects of the ocean and other factors. — Oh, 10 scientists. What, are we taking polls again? Where are the specifics? “Short time period” / “failure to consider” is too vague.
They also note that the paper appears in a journal that mostly deals with the nuts-and-bolts of satellite data and not interpreting the climate. — Ah, right, here we are. This, of course, answers everything. The paper is wrong because it is published in the wrong journal.
Ted wants to shut down invention BEFORE we invent these ‘new’ energy sources. He wants to give up before we’ve had the chance to develop them. — Right.
You know, you are really grasping at straws now.
Where do you get the notion that I want to shut down anything BEFORE we invent it. That is idiotic.
We don’t give up before we develop it. We do things in an orderly, well established manner in order to minimize wasting resources and maximizing the chance of success. This gets us to where we want to be quickly and economically.
1) Have an idea.
2) Do paper studies so that, if it works, it is feasible technically and economically.
3) If it passes muster on paper, go ahead and spend money on developing it.
4) If the development works out (no insurmountable problems show up), go ahead with a pilot project.
An example is ethanol. The USG went ahead and sponsored (indeed, passed laws forcing ethanol production) ethanol plants. Many were built. Now, it is apparent that diverting 40% of our corn production to ethanol reaults in:
a) Large increase in food prices.
2) Diversion of farmland from other crops to corn, thus increasing the price of those other commodities.
3) The net impact on energy is almost zero, as the fuel to grow, harvest, and convert the corn almost equals the fuel value of the ethanol. In fact, some investigators calculate that there is a net loss.
Many years ago, in a couple hours time, I looked up US corn production, how much ethanol could be produced from this total, read up on fuel required to produce it, and came up with a NET energy production of 250,000 BBL/day gasoline equivalent. This sort of study should have been done ahead of time. I have not mentioned the fringe effects, such as starvation in Africa. Also, the total costs, including increases in other ag commodities costs, must accrue to the ethanol, not just the direct cost. Even with just the direct cost, a subsidy is required to keep the thing going. If the total, including indirect costs, were added, ethanol would cost many tens of dollars/gal instead of the reported cost.
In the case of wind and solar, there are no viable backup or storage schemes. I have studied the subject for years. Every scheme, such as water or compressed air storage, is nonsense. Do the numbers youself!!
I cannot be sure, but inasmuch as mankind has been searching for new sources of energy for centuries, all the obvious schemes have long since been looked at. This suggests that something new, similar to the development of nuclear energy, must be found. Rehashing ideas that have been around for a long time is unlikely to come up with a different answer. In the meantime, don’t wreck what we have.
All this is standard practise in the engineering world. To plunge ahead and spend piles of money with no idea of how you will finish the job is madness. If anyone can show me a viable backup or storage scheme for wind and solar, I would be delighted to hear it. I have made this point repeatedly with no response from the wanna be engineers. All I get is that I am Mr. No because I don’t want to jump off the cliff. Show me a COMPLETE scheme, with numbers, and I will immediately back down.
By the way, I don’t intend to give up on energy. I devote a lot of my time to studying potential sources of energy. So far, they have all failed when I do the numbers. Some times I wish I was not an engineer. I could then push things like making gasoline out of CO2 with a straight face, to say nothing of all the time I would save studying and doing calcs.
I continue to be astonished at the number of people who are devoid of any understanding of engineering principles, but insist we throw out standard engineering methods and do it their way. I wish I was that egotistical and adventuresome (not).
Ted has stated the engineering method well.
When we started a new project we spent months on steps 1 & 2.
We would write a “proposal” proving it worked on paper. This could cost as much as a million dollars and take the whole department months to write.
The political method the alarmists espouse is “pass a law and pray”.
The laws of unintended consequences then bite you in the B**.
Ethanol is a good example.
BTW: I am in Dallas and it is about as warm as it gets [110 the record is 115 for an August day] but there is no wind.
The flags are drooping straight down as they always are when it is really hot. It’s a good thing we aren’t relying on wind power.
Netdr:
Well said. It is comforting to find another engineer who understands the engineering approach.
“Yeah, evryone”‘s opinion seems to be that we aught go out and by a car with no idea where we will get the wheels. In fact, we don’t even know what is supposed to fit on the axles. How brilliant.
Ted
To a non-engineer the world is a binary place. Numbers don’t seem to matter to them at all.
To an engineer the “devil is in the details”. [I try to put myself in their shoes but it is impossible.]
Engineers tend to be skeptics:
“Burt” Rutan is a fine example. Anyone who can build and test a working space ship is a rocket scientist by definition. Separating the flyspecks from the pepper is part of the job.
He is a well spoken and ardent skeptic for good reasons. He has a well thought out power point presentation.
AS shown many times the more scientific and informed someone is the more likely he/she is a skeptic of CAGW. [particularly the “C”]
http://www.sodahead.com/living/survey-by-yale-oregon-george-washington-and-temple-universities-found-that-the-most-scientifically/question-1952963/
Netdr:
I am absolutly astonished that people with no technical background run their mouth on engineering and scientific things they know nothing about.
Many years ago, I was doing some consulting in Turkey re a hydrogen peroxide synthesis project. One of the lead people was a World Bank guy (Harvard MBA). He made a complete ass of himself. He kept talking nonsense about things he was totally ignorant of. Later, the German engineers and I had a good laugh on the flight back to Frankfurt. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I have enough sense not to run my mouth when I don’t know what I’m talking about. I have been asked to consult on a chem eng area where I have no specific experience. I turned it down for obvious reasons and referred tham to a friend who was experienced in the field. I did not feel stupid for doing so. I was being professionally honest.
Waldo reminds me of that Harvard MBA in Turkey.
Yeah, Everyone’s Opinion is Equally Valid in Science:
**********
You have without knowing it hit on one of the profound reasons science works.
If it were otherwise the upstart Einstein could never have challenged to wise and venerable Newton.
In fact the established scientists who held that the earth was the center of everything would still be the prevailing theory.
So you are 100 % correct !
“Everyone’s Opinion is Equally Valid in Science”
That is why it is called “science” not “politics” or something else.
Apparently sock puppet agrees with me. At least he has no reasonable response, but that usually doesn’t stop him.
Science is founded on the principal that ” Everyone’s Opinion is Equally Valid ” !
Does sock puppet know a better method for determining truth ?
Perhaps those with more alphabet soup after their name should win always.
Malcolm:
Renewable Guy:
[URL to skepticalscience snipped] — Good, here is a different paper that includes a graph of actual measurements for 2003 through 2008:
http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152
The graph looks like this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/loehle_ocean-heat-content-blog-300×189.jpg
We can talk about whether or not it makes sense to display a linear fit for 4.5 years worth of data, but you can see that the amount of heat is going down with your own eyes.
So?
##############################
If you choose to read the article, there is discussion about the argo float data and the accuracy of short term trends. There is a section called the more data the better. The long term trend is still a warming earth.
###########################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Cooling-Corrected-Again.html
Ocean warming in context
The warming trend observed is slightly smaller than that seen in Von Schuckmann (2009), where the authors measure down to ocean depths of 2000 metres, and found a warming trend of 0.77 ±0.11 watts per square metre. However, it completely refutes a recent (2010) skeptic paper which suggested the oceans were cooling, based on the upper ocean down to 700 metres. Clearly much heat is finding it’s way down into deeper waters. And although small in comparison, the deep ocean is gaining heat too.
Upper ocean warming (0-700mtrs) is slower than that observed during the 1990’s, but the oceans are still gaining heat. Indeed, the slow-down is to be expected if recent papers on increased reflective aerosols in the atmsophere are correct.
Malcolm:
Renewable Guy:
[URL to skepticalscience snipped] — Good, here is a different paper that includes a graph of actual measurements for 2003 through 2008:
The graph looks like this:
We can talk about whether or not it makes sense to display a linear fit for 4.5 years worth of data, but you can see that the amount of heat is going down with your own eyes.
So?
##############################
If you choose to read the article, there is discussion about the argo float data and the accuracy of short term trends. There is a section called the more data the better. The long term trend is still a warming earth.
###########################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Cooling-Corrected-Again.html
Ocean warming in context
The warming trend observed is slightly smaller than that seen in Von Schuckmann (2009), where the authors measure down to ocean depths of 2000 metres, and found a warming trend of 0.77 ±0.11 watts per square metre. However, it completely refutes a recent (2010) skeptic paper which suggested the oceans were cooling, based on the upper ocean down to 700 metres. Clearly much heat is finding it’s way down into deeper waters. And although small in comparison, the deep ocean is gaining heat too.
Upper ocean warming (0-700mtrs) is slower than that observed during the 1990′s, but the oceans are still gaining heat. Indeed, the slow-down is to be expected if recent papers on increased reflective aerosols in the atmsophere are correct.
Malcolm:
Yeah…:
At least 10 climate scientists reached by The Associated Press found technical or theoretical faults with Spencer’s study or its conclusions. They criticized the short time period he studied and his failure to consider the effects of the ocean and other factors. — Oh, 10 scientists. What, are we taking polls again? Where are the specifics? “Short time period” / “failure to consider” is too vague.
They also note that the paper appears in a journal that mostly deals with the nuts-and-bolts of satellite data and not interpreting the climate. — Ah, right, here we are. This, of course, answers everything. The paper is wrong because it is published in the wrong journal.
###################################
No Malcolm, it was so wrong it couldn’t make it into the quality journals. They don’t publish far right propaganda.
Remote sensors magazine for climate science?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/just-put-the-model-down-roy.html
Here is Barry Bickmore basically showing how Spencer adjusted the numbers to get the results he wanted. You know how this blog talks about conspiracy of the scientists fudging numbers. Here is a prime example of just such a paper. The very one you are defending. Good luck on that one.
The Chuckr:
No GCM has shown skill in predicting long-term climate trends. Pielke Sr. has written numerous papers on this topic as have others or maybe Dessler, Romm, or Schmidt don’t take Pielke Sr. seriously, either
#################
source?
NetDr:
So far the CAGW hysteria is short on testable results.
By predicting everything they predict nothing. Saying that every weather event is climate is silly.
So inadvertently your name speaks a profound truth.
###################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
The skeptic argument…
There’s no empirical evidence
“There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.” (David Evans)
What the science says…
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
#################################
WIth present day understanding of climate, we can model how Richard Lindzen’s assumptions would come out compared the James Hansen’s.
###################################
Lindzen, however, disputed the accuracy of GISTEMP:
“The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree….I would say, and I don’t think I’m going out on a very big limb, that the data as we have it does not support a warming. Whether it contradicts it is a matter of taste”
It turns out that Lindzen’s first statement here was incorrect. According to the slightly longer temperature record of the Hadley Centre, 1880 was closer to a local maximum than a minimum. But more importantly, he is claiming here that the average global surface temperature trend between 1880 and 1989 is approximately 0.1°C. Lindzen proceeds to effectively assert that any greenhouse gas warming signal is swamped out by the noise of natural internal variability.
“I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small”
As we recently discussed, natural variability rarely results in more than 0.2 to 0.3°C warming on decadal timescales, so Lindzen is clearly predicting a very small amount of greenhouse warming over the next century. Using these quotes, I reconstructed what I think are two reasonable approximations of global temperature projections based on Lindzen’s belief of the small warming effects of greenhouse gases. I want to be explicit that these projections are my interpretation of Lindzen’s comments, not Lindzen’s own projections.
###########
As you can see, Hansen’s Scenario B is not far from reality, with a warming trend since 1984 (0.26°C per decade) approximately 30% too high (compared to our average GISTEMP trend of 0.20°C per decade), and the adjusted Scenario B even closer, with a warming trend just 17% higher than observed.
Our reconstructions of Lindzen’s projections, on the other hand, increasingly diverge from reality. His warming trend of approximately 0.01°C to 0.02°C per decade is 90 to 95% too low.
A side by side comparison of Lindzen Vs Hansen. When Hansen’s assumptions are corrected, he comes very close to the present day temperature day record.
#######################
a si