|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2010 12:22:20 GMT
Here is the opening to his speech: "Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of these facts and of their implications. 1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain. 2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments. Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC." wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdfwattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/dr-richard-lindzens-heartland-2010-keynote-address/#more-19613
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2010 13:52:39 GMT
Nice for him that he had a non-sentient audience I fully agree that talking about "settled science" is offensive. Fortunately the climate research goes on. The negative forcings are not "unknown". They are uncertain. The uncertainty boundaries point to limits of sensitivity such that they allow for a relatively low sensitivity (1.5C) but unlikely to be lower. The sensitivity of the models is not enforced, it is a result of trying to get the models consistent with climatology (before any forcings, positive or negative, are applied). Given that the evidence for high sensitivity is not even mostly from 20th Century climate, Lindzen is looking at only a limited part of the evidence (and getting it wrong).
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 18, 2010 15:28:19 GMT
steve your are still here with your Volcanic man-made CO2? Is that ¨Settled Science¨?
We all know what you try to insert here, steve thats been your job all along. Please settled Greenhouse effect for me please, settle it, then settle CO2 involvement in it.
Having that type of obsession and blindness aint free, Im sure if I was your agent, I can get you paid.
|
|
|
Post by latecommer on May 18, 2010 16:35:11 GMT
The more accurate statement is that most evidence points to water vapor feedback as negative, and there is also now research that suggests that as CO2 goes up, water vapor, especially at the higher altitude levels of its effect, is reduced. This tends to balance out any warming created by CO2, which after all only accounts for a very small fraction of all global warming gases. Much less powerful and much more limited than water vapor. Models also do not deal well with cloud cover, and some, to avoid this problem, do not deal with clouds at all. It always is interesting to hear an "alarmist" speak of doubling the Co2 levels as if it were humanly possible to do this. All the gas and oil reserves and a large portion of the coal would have to be burned to produce these numbers, and still it would not equal the average level of every commercial greenhouse. When the human proportion of the CO2 gas in the atmosphere is doubled we have about a 3% increase in overall levels. Only with increases in natural sources could a doubling be possible.
GCM's are not evidence of anything other than the manipulations of certain scientists to advance their agenda. Does anyone doubt that, when those who blamed fossil fuels for the cooling of the 70's also blamed it for the warming of the 90's? It is very apparent that there is an agenda, and it is just as apparent that the GMC's have been wrong in all their predictions. If computer scientists wish to be considered climatologists they need to go back to the university and take the courses. There they might learn that models are NEVER EVIDENCE! When they have the courage to predict the climate changes 10 years down the road... a time limit we can judge, instead of predicting at a time span where they will be long forgotten, perhaps some respect could be given their efforts. The last 20 years of actual climate data has shown us why they lack the courage. The efforts of many of these "scientists" is obviously for the effects of change and not for the good of humanity. I believe many have, in their hearts, said "the world will be better for our efforts and even though we likely are wrong in our predictions and approach, the greater good will balance out our present day deception". That is not the way to do physical science...that is pure political science. Just as religion and science coexist well as long as one does not pretend to be the other, Physical and political science must also observe this condition.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 18, 2010 19:03:12 GMT
The negative forcings are not "unknown". They are uncertain. The uncertainty boundaries point to limits of sensitivity such that they allow for a relatively low sensitivity (1.5C) but unlikely to be lower. I find it amusingthat they could once question if cloud feedback was negative or positive...yet they just immediately say aerosols (essentially brown clouds and carbon black) are incredibly powerful negative feedbacks. Lets be honest here...this is nothing but a convenient excuse given for a LACK of warming. Don't be daft...its the result of scientists FIRST assuming the sensitivity is high and then using a mishmash of known and unknown forcings/feedbacks to fit it to the modern temperature record. Indeed, and this is a barn door sized hole in the hypothesis of substantial AGW. The problem is that MOST of the evidence for this supposedly high sensitivity comes from configurations of the planet that have nothing to do with modern times. During the glacial periods the feedbacks ARE quite high (pushing toward runaway)...and the milankovitch cycles, aside from their minor "forcing" actually cause a fundamental change in the behavior of those feedbacks. Those feedbacks are essentially gone now. 30% ice coverage is REAL ice albedo feedback. The tiny percentage of (variable) ice left in the world is...well it's tiny. Any desertification would be a negative feedback. Any loss of desert (a positive feedback) would be a boon to mankind (and mostly where it's needed...the developing world). To proclaim warming feedbacks remotely close to the strength of those during the glacial-interglacial transitions is to proclaim your utter ignorance of the actual conditions...for you or for a climate scientist.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2010 22:36:01 GMT
Can Lindzen explain the magnitude of past climate change with a low sensitivity yet?
It's not just climate colder than today for those who want to blame that high sensitivity all on ice (doesn't work - people have done the numbers and it falls short), but it's also climate warmer than today.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on May 18, 2010 23:36:53 GMT
Nice for him that he had a non-sentient audience
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2010 7:27:29 GMT
poitsplace
No you are wrong. The models are tested against climatology before any changes in forcing are applied. The IPCC projections are perturbation experiments. ie. you take a model that is otherwise stable, and then add greenhouse gases/aerosols etc. according to the various emissions scenarios (SRES) and see what happens. It is true that the 20th Century simulations are a bit tweaked by varying the impact of aerosols - the key thing they show is that the theory is reasonable. This is contrary to what Lindzen is claiming, and Lindzen only gets away with it by claiming that since the aerosol impacts are "unknown" they should be removed.
He's been telling this story for years. It undermines his credibility as a scientist that when he lobbies (eg. at the UK parliament a few years ago) he uses his scientific credentials but refuses to mention the countless arguments against his position.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on May 19, 2010 12:40:44 GMT
The bottom line is that the climate is not facing a crisis caused by CO2 and that we have wasted billions of dollars and social capital on the fools who claim otherwise. We could have cleaned water for hundreds of millions of people. We could have developed anti-soot technologies for use worldwide. We could have maybe built better blowout preventers and pre-positioned oil slick controls worldwide. But no, instead we are dealing with people who claim that ~1o change means we are facing a climate apocalypse, and in the face of no apocalypse think that if they call everyone who points that out a denier and idiot then their predictions will come true.
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 19, 2010 12:47:11 GMT
If the climate change tomorrow of 10 to 15 degrees, it will still be another cause than man-made volcanic CO2.
Magnetic field, Sun spots, Earth ellipse-tilt-wobble.
All the money spent accusing CO2 instead of funding real research on climate. That tells you someone is gonna get very rich with CO2
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2010 13:48:50 GMT
hunter
If Lindzen needs to resort to sleight of hand to present his case then it cannot be as clear cut as that.
poitsplace
Ice coverage does not explain all the temperature change during the ice age cycles.
I don't think the drying of the Amazon basin would be counted as a negative feedback.
To proclaim that you know the feedbacks are minimal is...erm, what you said.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 19, 2010 14:12:57 GMT
Steve, Attacking Richard Lindzen's integrity by accusing him of "sleight of hand" reveals the weakness of your position. Just a heads-up. Harold
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 19, 2010 15:32:22 GMT
The sensitivity of the models is not enforced, it is a result of trying to get the models consistent with climatology (before any forcings, positive or negative, are applied). If you took what you said as literally true then sensitivity would have to be infinite as by definition sensitivity cannot be consistent with climatology without considering forcings since it is a result of forcing and does not exist in its absence. What you should mention is sensitivity is based upon the assumption that the natural forcings are known, well understood, and measured. It doesn't make any difference that you will deny that because it is the only logical answer as you cannot tune a forcing model to existing climatology without knowing the above. Of course the models fail to do that well right out of the box so they are instead tuned based upon a best match assuming a starting state of equilibrium and ignoring the possibility of natural forcings creating the last 300 years of warming. CO2 is inserted as a proxy for that, but it doesn't match well at all or else Socold could extend his chart back in time without CO2 going up and down like a roller coaster. CO2 increases matched the hockey stick instead thus the focus then changed to changing the historic temperature record to also match the hockey stick. Pretty slick stuff indeed. And of course since it seems apparent, if for no other reason than 11 years of stalled warming as a result of a "travesty", that we do not have much of a clue about natural forcings, its premature to build models to estimate impacts of forcings as its impossible to correctly tune the models due to a lack of understanding of what drives climate, on what timescales, with what sensitivity or anything of that nature. Bottom line is one can match anything to a given sensitivity if you can make unverified adjustments. I mean its easy to make 1 equal 3 by adding 2. And all Lindzen wants is some justification for the 2. On top of that is the "assumption" of equilibrium to begin with. This is just hockey stickism that ignores long term cycles in the climate despite it being right in their face everywhere they look, with the exception of a few rare pieces of burl wood. McIntyre called them "sacred groves" and indeed they have all the hallmarks of a religious artifact. . . .certainly no science supports them.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2010 15:53:44 GMT
Steve, Attacking Richard Lindzen's integrity by accusing him of "sleight of hand" reveals the weakness of your position. Just a heads-up. Harold His sleight of hand is to pretend that aerosols are so uncertain that they should be ignored. He has done this at this meeting. He did it at a parliamentary committee in the UK a few years ago. Why is is a weakness of my position to point this out? I have pointed out the point Lindzen has made about the unlikely match between 20th Century obs and *nearly all* models a number of times, and the fact that it is likely related to choices about aerosols. I don't need to use sleight of hand.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2010 16:04:55 GMT
Icefisher:
I'm happy that approx 1 plus approx 2 equals approx 3. Lindzen says that since we don't know 2 to 3 decimal places, we should assume that it is zero, and that therefore the IPCC are claiming that 1+0=3.
CO2 experiments are perturbation experiments. If there are long term cycles then CO2 adds to whatever the long-term cycle would otherwise give.
Given that significant long-term cycles are still hypothetical, I suggest we ignore them.
|
|