Climate Science 101 V2.0

[Keepitsimple]

The usual suspects call him a Charlatan, but Richard Lindzen is grudgingly respected by objective scientists on both sides of the debate. Here's a recent piece that puts things in perspective without entering the world of mind-numbing minutiae.

Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

...................................................continued.

Link: http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

Edited January 17, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

The usual suspects call him a Charlatan, but Richard Lindzen is grudgingly respected by objective scientists on both sides of the debate. Here's a recent piece that puts things in perspective without entering the world of mind-numbing minutiae.

Link: http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

As long as we're citing him, let's note also that he concurs that AGW and the Greenhouse Effect are both real.

[Pliny]

Ahhh...did you post that just for me. Thanks.

Highlights:

Climate data is often changed to match scientific models???

Enron, Wall St., Al Gore all favouring and hedging their bets on a projected trillion dollar carbon trading industry fostering Kyoto and lobbying for carbon cap and trade schemes.

I suspect the alarmism and demogoguery associated with the subject has been unnecessary.

[Pliny]

As long as we're citing him, let's note also that he concurs that AGW and the Greenhouse Effect are both real.

OK. Noted. Let's do away with the hype and hysteria and the foolish political manouvers designed to bring well-positioned bureaucrats, politicians and bankers a windfall and opportunity for new avenues of regualtion and taxation and ballooning bureaucracy to manage these wealth transfer schemes of tariffs and subsidies.

Be nice or you won't get your subsidy.

[Keepitsimple]

As long as we're citing him, let's note also that he concurs that AGW and the Greenhouse Effect are both real.

As do many sceptics - like me.....it's just the degree of this "reality". Your acknowledgement should make the article that much more interesting to you.

[Michael Hardner]

OK. Noted. Let's do away with the hype and hysteria and the foolish political manouvers designed to bring well-positioned bureaucrats, politicians and bankers a windfall and opportunity for new avenues of regualtion and taxation and ballooning bureaucracy to manage these wealth transfer schemes of tariffs and subsidies.

Hype and hysteria are inevitable when there are potentially drastic circumstances, and the media loves to play the worst case scenarios over and over: that gets our attention.

[Michael Hardner]

As do many sceptics - like me.....it's just the degree of this "reality". Your acknowledgement should make the article that much more interesting to you.

Maybe, but I suspect that we're on the same page there.

I'd be interested in that debate only after we've passed a watershed whereby regular posters stop doubting AGW. If everybody less stubborn than Saipan does that, then I'll move on to the next question I think.

[waldo]

... but Richard Lindzen is grudgingly respected by objective scientists on both sides of the debate.

that initial respect, offered 'grudgingly', was for Lindzen's early non-climate related research... what little 'grudgingly respect' that was accorded Lindzen, has gradually given way to an acknowledgment of his failed science and the associations he keeps. Lindzen's failed science is, quite properly, challenged and refuted in the arena of scientific peer review. Lindzen's associations are a testament to his denial and his 'hired gun' status...

(suggestions that Lindzen offers "acceptance" to AGW... to the greenhouse effect... are his 'concern troll' positions. Yes, Lindzen accepts the greenhouse effect yet couches his AGW denial in terms of qualifying water vapour as the predominant GHG... that, as he has stated, "In the absence of good records of water vapor we aren't even in a position to say how much total greenhouse gases have increased". Lindzen's supposed acceptance of AGW is countered by his failed research/positions attempting to assign the, lowest of the low, climate sensitivity. As I said, Lindzen's failed science has been challenged and refuted within the scientific community... within the arena of peer review).

[waldo]

As do many sceptics - like me.....it's just the degree of this "reality". Your acknowledgement should make the article that much more interesting to you.

see the brazillion of Simple posts that most certainly do not speak to "the degree" - see Simple's "concern troll" position played out through his MLW wandering trail of AGW denial posts.

[WIP]

The usual suspects call him a Charlatan, but Richard Lindzen is grudgingly respected by objective scientists on both sides of the debate. Here's a recent piece that puts things in perspective without entering the world of mind-numbing minutiae.

Link: http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

That article illustrates why I think that some of the so-called skeptics are malicious actors, rather than deluded or single-minded etc. Forget about all of the examples that can be cited of Lindzen shifting the goalposts and changing his arguments over the years, nowhere in that piece can I find one word: EXTINCTION. And mass extinction of animal species has been a large factor in every example of the past where we find alligators living in the Arctic. Civilization as we know it is not going to survive a period where the Earth has no polar ice caps, so just because it has happened in the past, and some species survived to retake the Earth, does not mean that this is something that future generations are going to survive; and I think people like Lindzen know this already.

There does seem to be a strategy looming from the way the climate change issue is being dealt with by the U.S. and other advanced nations, that since the worst effects are going to be felt in over-populated regions of the Third World, where temperatures are high and agriculture is already perilously close to collapse, that it's okay to just write them off and see if we can save a remnant of the Earth's population. Guys like Lindzen know too much to carelessly talk about past climate variations as if its okay; or to ignore the fact that rising CO2 levels have other catastrophic effects besides trapping the Sun's energy, like increasing ocean acidification for example.

[waldo]

Highlights:

Climate data is often changed to match scientific models???

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn't and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.

reported by Lindzen in 2007???... here I thought it was Santer himself... in Santer et al, 2000... who (first) highlighted the discrepancy! But, hey now, anytime I'm given a free shot... particularly one that gets to reinforce Simple ton's self-described, "big hole", well... you just know I can't help myself - hey, Pliny?

All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, satellite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be.

A potentially serious inconsistency has been identified in the tropics, the area in which tropospheric amplification should be seen. Section 1.1 of the CCSP report says:

"In the tropics, the agreement between models and observations depends on the time scale considered. For month-to-month and year-to-year variations, models and observations both show amplification (i.e., the month-to-month and year-to-year variations are larger aloft than at the surface). This is a consequence of relatively simple physics, the effects of the release of latent heat as air rises and condenses in clouds. The magnitude of this amplification is very similar in models and observations. On decadal and longer time scales, however, while almost all model simulations show greater warming aloft (reflecting the same physical processes that operate on the monthly and annual time scales), most observations show greater warming at the surface."These results could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric data sets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report favors the second explanation."

The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively.

Link: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Satellite%20temperature%20measurements

It's not really the measurement that's at question so much as the theory. The theory states that it should be 1.2 times warmer than surface temperature in the troposphere and 1.5 times when measured at the tropics. It is not......so either the surface temperatures are incorrect or the satellite measurements are incorrect....or the theory is incorrect. Either way, there's a big hole to fill because as I say - everything stems from the fact that temperatures are really out of sync with natural climate variation. All of the other stuff is just noise and speculation.

Simple... too easy - notwithstanding the fine smackdown TrueMetis just delivered to you... let's examine what you've brought to the table:

- Simple presents, as he states, "a big hole"... of course, one can ask Simple if he would change his tune... if only that "big hole"... could be plugged.

... and ya, Simple... is that you complaining about cut&paste... as you cut&paste - whaaa!

- Simple keeps harping on his favourite TV weatherman's smoking-gun... UHI. Of course, we've addressed that many times over in previous MLW climate change related threads when Simple's parroted his TV weather guy. Aside from the repeated NOAA refutations that directly address the TV weatherman wizard... Simple still keeps trotting it out.

- Simple's key linked (indirect) reference is actually to prominent, very legitimate scientists... several of the same names he's trashed in the past, particularly given their involvements as lead authors or contributors to IPCC reports. Somehow... Simple likes these guys - now... when he thinks he can use something for his purposes!

- Simple's main reference is to a copy of a wiki page... hmmmm... careful Simple, watch out - danger ahead!

- Simple's wiki article references a CCSP report; specifically CCSP 1.1. Now... certainly CCSP is a most legitimate entity/program... I've referenced CCSP reports many times, along with reports from it's covering umbrella, the USGCRP. If I recall correctly, I held up CCSP & USGCRP reports as examples of separate bodies working to review, analyze and report on climate... separate and independent of the IPCC. One can only assume Simple is reading some dated denier blog reference and can't be bothered to actually check out the basis of his, as he calls it, "big hole". Apparently... Simple doesn't realize CCSP reports are now up to CCSP 5.3 - Simple's reference is to the very first initial CCSP report, CCSP 1.1 (initiated in 2004 with final release in Feb 2006 - a full year prior to the release of the Feb 2007 IPCC AR4 report).

perhaps Simple just needs to get a bit current... or actually try to check out his dated denier blog references... or just throw a MLW search out there, hey Simple? So, in the following quote string, another of the MLW usual suspects, previously trotted out a more direct reference to the same 2000 Santer et al paper that Simple's linked wiki article references.

...you must have really scrambled to find that Heartland Institute/Michaels gem. Without offering any comment you dropped a blind link to a dated “article” that references an early 2000 Santer et al study that speaks to what was, at that time, an apparent lack of tropospheric warming from 1979… that is to say, a perceived difference between surface and tropospheric warming rates. The study concludes by acknowledging:

a significant difference between models and data in terms of their relative temperature changes at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This discrepancy is probably related to a combination of four factors: forcing uncertainties, model errors, residual uncertainties in the surface and MSU 2LT data, and signal estimation problems.

The study conclusion continues to elaborate on each of the four factors and finishes with the statements,

These results highlight the difficulty of reliably estimating the climate responses to different forcing mechanisms without multiple realizations for each forcing experiment. All of these factors make it difficult to determine the precise cause or causes of recent observed surface-troposphere temperature trend differences. To better understand these causes, we urgently require additional simulations of the climate of the past two decades. Such simulations should be performed with a variety of models and should explore current uncertainties in key natural and anthropogenic forcings, using multiple realizations of each experiment

Imagine… scientists acknowledging discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems… and yet… somehow the Heartland Institute/Michaels clap-trap interprets an author’s (Santer et al) self-serving misrepresentation while at the same time throwing innuendo around – beauty!

In any case, you can choose to while away in the Heartland Institute fallacious past… or you can recognize that science progresses – go figure! Santer… one of the most distinguished and recognized atmospheric scientists… has been most busy this past decade since that early 2000 paper – busy in bringing forward a most prolific body of work with multiple papers per year. With this, your latest temperature-GHG-temperature spin-cycle, perhaps you’ll give passing acknowledgment to this 2008 Santer et al paper: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a potentially serious inconsistency between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006).

Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs).

We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes.

We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.

This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations.

Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test

. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society

... or perhaps you have a more current Heartland Institute response!

[waldo]

The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative -- strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity. Unfortunately, Lindzen and Choi (2009) contained a number of errors; however, as shown in a paper currently under review, these errors were not relevant to the main conclusion.

ah yes, the standard go-to... target "the models". But we get a bonus to read Lindzen (as he has many times prior) acknowledging the hopelessly flawed Lindzen & Choi, 2009. Now... he's been quoted, again, many times over... that a re-do was in the making. However, this is the first time I've read him inferring the paper's mistakes were "irrelevant". I trust that upon the release of the upcoming described Lindzen revisal, the denialsphere will remain calm and await the process of peer response, prior to uttering the standard "AGW Killer" assessments... as was done for the earlier Lindzen & Choi, 2009

now... about that standard go-to to target, "the models", in regards climate sensitivity... without the models:

Sorry - there is a huge difference between claiming that "humans aren't affecting the climate" and claiming that "it's insignificant and we need do nothing". The latter viewpoint is completely consistent with all we know about GHGs and radiative physics. What you need to remember is the argument that more CO2 leads to catastrophic climate change has no theoretical basis - it is nothing but an assumption which is programmed into the climate models.

snicker... without the models... the CO2 problem in 6 easy steps... without relying on climate models

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.

Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions

CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.

These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.

There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.

The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).

Step 5:

Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ’slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.

Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number

Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

Q.E.D.?

[bloodyminded]

see the brazillion of Simple posts that most certainly do not speak to "the degree" - see Simple's "concern troll" position played out through his MLW wandering trail of AGW denial posts.

We see this occur far beyond the scope of Keepitsimple's arguments. It surfaces and resurfaces with predictable regularity.

"It's not happening; yes, of course it's happening, we have always said so, but it's a matter of degree; but you can't prove it's happening; yes, yes, I already know it's happening; but is it really?"

[Pliny]

Hype and hysteria are inevitable when there are potentially drastic circumstances, and the media loves to play the worst case scenarios over and over: that gets our attention.

The potentially drastic circumstances are the political ramifications.

[Pliny]

That article illustrates why I think that some of the so-called skeptics are malicious actors, rather than deluded or single-minded etc. Forget about all of the examples that can be cited of Lindzen shifting the goalposts and changing his arguments over the years, nowhere in that piece can I find one word: EXTINCTION. And mass extinction of animal species has been a large factor in every example of the past where we find alligators living in the Arctic. Civilization as we know it is not going to survive a period where the Earth has no polar ice caps, so just because it has happened in the past, and some species survived to retake the Earth, does not mean that this is something that future generations are going to survive; and I think people like Lindzen know this already.

There does seem to be a strategy looming from the way the climate change issue is being dealt with by the U.S. and other advanced nations, that since the worst effects are going to be felt in over-populated regions of the Third World, where temperatures are high and agriculture is already perilously close to collapse, that it's okay to just write them off and see if we can save a remnant of the Earth's population. Guys like Lindzen know too much to carelessly talk about past climate variations as if its okay; or to ignore the fact that rising CO2 levels have other catastrophic effects besides trapping the Sun's energy, like increasing ocean acidification for example.

I'm sorry to see you are so frightened. Remember Rudyard Kipling's great poem "If".

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you....

We can get through this....WIP...when we do you'll be a man.

[GostHacked]

see the brazillion of Simple posts that most certainly do not speak to "the degree" - see Simple's "concern troll" position played out through his MLW wandering trail of AGW denial posts.

And you are playing the position of 'attack dog'.

[bloodyminded]

I'm sorry to see you are so frightened. Remember Rudyard Kipling's great poem "If".

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you....

We can get through this....WIP...when we do you'll be a man.

Please. This from Mr. "The Commies are Coming!"

[Keepitsimple]

We see this occur far beyond the scope of Keepitsimple's arguments. It surfaces and resurfaces with predictable regularity.

"It's not happening; yes, of course it's happening, we have always said so, but it's a matter of degree; but you can't prove it's happening; yes, yes, I already know it's happening; but is it really?"

When I quote the "AGW Theory", I refer to the ideology that CO2 produced by human activities are the major driver behind Global Warming. I accept that the world has been warming for some time (since the Little Ice Age ended). I accept that CO2 has the ability to contribute to warming through the Greenhouse effect. I have seen no proof that CO2 has anything more than a minor effect on temperature. While I imagine you'd be bored with my postings, you won't find any change in my position - it's simply what degree do humans/CO2 contribute to any warming.....I think it's very minor....I'm not sure what Alarmists actually believe but "major" would have to be at least 50%.

[waldo]

...the ideology that CO2 produced by human activities are the major driver behind Global Warming.

ideology? Does that taint anything else you might presume to say on your fabricated self-assessment? Ya think? As I said, your MLW posts lay claim to your denial. Should we start with your constant "it's cooling" refrain... except when you'd say you've accepted it's warming... only to be supplanted by your "it's cooling" meme. Repeat, rinse, recycle.

[waldo]

And you are playing the position of 'attack dog'.

ah yes... the simpering/whimpering, posturing with a false civility, while failing to recognize and acknowledge their own incessant attacks...

[waldo]

reading that Lindzen diatribe allows for easy retort... Simple, would you like another?

while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007).

Lindzen purposely squirrels away the context of the Smith et al, 2007 paper; i.e., short-term climate predictions (more particular, predictions on a decadal or annual basis)... so called, internal variability. Most certainly, climatologists acknowledge the difficulties in presuming to use climate models to predict within the shortest/shorter of time frames... uhhh... sumthin bout natural variations. It's the very reason there are distinct weather versus climate models - duh! Of course, through longer timeframes, those instances of natural variability most influencing on shorter periods of time, are 'canceled out or lessened' in impact. The issue of shorter term projection within climate models is a heavily studied area within climate modeling... aspects of recent advances in related understanding are being integrated into the next climate model ensembles (as will be present within AR5). As for Lindzen's over-the-top, falsely grandiose claim of "demolishing the basis for the IPCC's iconic attribution"... from the IPCC AR4 report:

On scales [smaller than 50 years], natural climate variability is relatively larger [than human influences], making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external [e.g.man-made] forcings

re: the Smith et al, 2007 paper (abstract)... the one Lindzen claims "demolishes the basis for the IPCC's iconic attribution"

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

(bold emphasis added by waldo)

hey Dickie... how have things progressed since 2007 - hey?

[Shady]

Maybe, but I suspect that we're on the same page there.

I'd be interested in that debate only after we've passed a watershed whereby regular posters stop doubting AGW. If everybody less stubborn than Saipan does that, then I'll move on to the next question I think.

Yes, if everyone agreed with you things would be a lot easier. What other dissent do you wish to also silence?

[bloodyminded]

Yes, if everyone agreed with you things would be a lot easier. What other dissent do you wish to also silence?

You should take it up with the majority of the sceptics here who claim that "everybody agrees" that AGW is real.

They're trying to silence your "dissent."

[bloodyminded]

ah yes... the simpering/whimpering, posturing with a false civility, while failing to recognize and acknowledge their own incessant attacks...

Exactly. The debate is evidently between "sceptics" and "alarmists."

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, if everyone agreed with you things would be a lot easier. What other dissent do you wish to also silence?

Dissent is fine. Refusal to accept any facts whatsoever, just because one doesn't like the people stating them is a problem of ego.