please explain this

Bob.

I've tended to stay out of these discussions, but your video is a discussion by a chemist and they tend to have shallow understanding of feedback systems and the complexity of our ecosystem. Where is the discussion of the increased biomass that occurs with both an increase in temperature and CO2? Any biomass increase will tend to reduce atmospheric CO2 and is a factor that needs to be included in and predictive model.

JeffD

 

Ordinarily I would agree about 'chemist' except her lecture addresses 'causality', ice cores, and the paleorecord. At the end of the video are listed the source material used in her lecture. Still, I'm less worried about her training as much as whether her content is accurate.

Mann is an expert in this area but even the mention of his name often sets 'hair on fire.' However, the PAGES 2k project has recently pretty much recreated his original hocky-stick using data by independent researchers across the globe.

You've raised an interesting biomass question that Doug and I have chatted about. The problem is biological processes that fix carbon tend to release it in the Fall, when the die, or when they are burned off. So we see this in cyclical Keeling curve plots.

Doug has suggested another bio-sink, soils, and except for the obvious, permafrost, I agree it is an area that needs study. But gosh that will be a difficult one to study. For example, I live in the Southeast with a lot of river-bottom land. How far into the soil do we need to go? All of it or down to the water line or down to bedrock. In our area, bedrock is often limestone and that has a tremendous amount of carbon.

Bob Wilson

 

I wouldn't put much stock in exaggerated claims on skeptical science. It goes beyond the science many times, and leaves out caveats. You know its a blog with soundbites. You need a longer fuller explanation to actually understand. No ghg won't save the earth from the next ice age, but might delay it. The current theory of the mass extinction of dinosaurs (some species of birds descended from dinosaurs) is climate change from a asteroid impact.

For understanding ghg and temperature alley is a real climate scientist gives a good lecture.

 

This chart?

Source: Past atmospheric composition and greenhouse gases – University of Copenhagen

The authors of this chart go on to say at the web site:

Past temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are seen to show a strong degree of co-variation over the entire time period, except for the most recent period. This natural variability is related to the glacial cycles. In recent times, the greenhouse gas concentrations are seen to show a very abrupt rise as compared to the natural levels of the past 800 thousand years. The rise is caused by mankind's extended use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.​

We are running an experiment that has not been found in the paleorecord.

That is addressed at 3:05 into the video:

That point of the video shows CO{2} is a leading indicator. But when you look at the Keeling curve, we find there are no paleorecords showing the same rate of change as we have in the modern era:

Source: The Keeling Curve A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego

What they are pointing out is organisms evolve in some environment. If that environment changes, the organisms may not adapt to the new environment and go extinct. For example, our species does not seem to have the earlier hominids around (although I have a few nominations handy.)

The current CO{2} levels are consistent with at least a 1C increase from today on top of the 1C we've already had since the 1850s. There is some variability in the estimates about how soon but that is driven by the accelerating rate of CO{2} from the Keeling curve.

Bob Wilson

 

The Skeptical Science documents have these "hyperlinks" that eventually go to the source papers. I know it is hard to understand but that is how modern articles are written. You may not like what they say but I've always been able to find the source. So instead of making blanket statements, perhaps you might quote one or more specific places where you have a problem with Skeptical Science?

An Oklahoman, I would hate to start making blanket statements about Texans.

Bob Wilson

 

Its not hard to understand. Its like watching foxnews or msnbc. It will point to and color the discussion to do what the evangelical christian that runs the site believes, just like watts up with that will point to the stuff the meterologist believes. It is a colored truth. I tried to point to something longer than a soundbite for someone that reads watts up with that to understand.

To me anyone that leads with the terms denier, is not trying to explain the science, but win political points. Just like someone holding a confederate flag talking about states rights, may have a valid point, but they are not going to convince a black audience that they really care about the truth.

I have in the past, and that is not productive, because the truth is often more complicated. We can do that on another thread where mojo defends watts up with that, but its not my thing.
Here the op asked a question, and didn't like your source. I tried to give him a better one. One that should not be controversial, but can't be read in 1 minute. What is your problem with the alley discussion? FOr someone that wants to understand the science.

No problem with that but did it answer the question posted? The page you pointed to, had a what the science says, and a science myth. The problem is that the climate myth that skeptical science is pretending is a myth

Is not a myth. It is a scientific fact when read in the context Professor Lindzen said it. Now Lindzen was a good enough climate scientist for the IPCC to hire, and for al gore to pretend he was part of the consensus. Why pretend this quote is not true. The explanation is not to call Lindzen a denyer (skeptical science has done this), but to look deeper into the scientific knowledge.

 

As for 'denier', one of the things Denial 101x did was identify characteristics found in different flavors. Some come from a 'free market', Libertarian bend and don't really care as long as there won't be any laws or regulations. Others come from the conspiracy side and live in fear. Some come from the economic side seeing their 'meal ticket' threatened. The taxonomy should not stand in the way of understanding there are folks who claim:

• There is no global warming.
• There is global warming but it is not caused by CO{2}.
• There is global warming caused by CO{2} but it stopped in 1998.
• There is global warming caused by CO{2} and its continuation is a good thing. We need more.
• What is global warming?
• What's a globe?

But that really was a long drink of water to get to:

I don't know Lindzen from Adam so I'll have see what Skeptical Science says and why. I may or may not agree with them but first let's address what these 'rascals' at Skeptical Science actually said.

Bob Wilson

 

And that is why a MIT climate scientist is called a denier, because he thinks warming won't be catastrophic. That is who sceptical science in your post put in the myth catagory, and has called a denyier. He doesn't dispute that their is global warming, or that carbon dioxide is partially responsable. But I guess if you believe ad hominum attacks are a good way to educate, then by all means, I disagree.

Now if it is to make your political side feel better well it has no place in a scientific discussion. I belive that calling a course denial 101 is meant to eliminate anyone being skeptical or raising questions That isn't how I think you should do sciene, but then a lot of people thought that the confederate flag should be above the south carolina state house. Politics is funny sometimes when its not said. I think this name calling in science though prevents reasonable solutions to the problems.

Why? Why not use a better source. Do you have to use a source that frames science in the christian and political spheres. I like my science without god or politics.

Now skeptical science and watts up with that do often state correct facts. The problem is they often poisen the well with other gibberish. When you are trying to convince someone in an argument, I would think unbiased facts are better than those known to often be biased

 

Meteorology is a colored truth?
Im actually impressed that WUWT has minimal right wing political stances.
Ive never suspected any hint of distortion or lying ever in reading that site for 10 years.
Its a luxury of being on the correct side of the argument that there is no need to lie or exaggerate.
Whereas a site like Skeptcal Science is proven liars.

 

So I thought to take this and see what we can Google up on Professor Lindzen:

• Richard S. Lindzen - biographical introduction at MIT
  • 'Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. ...'
• http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/97trbs~1.pdf - "Turbulence and Stress Owing to Gravity Wave and Tidal Breakdown"
  
• Atmospheric Tides: Thermal and Gravitational - S. Chapman, R.S. Lindzen - Google Books - "Atmospheric Tides: Thermal and Gravitational"
  
• An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie - "On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics"
  
• Reference 1 - "An Updated Theory for the Quasi-Biennial Cycle of the Tropical Stratosphere"
  
• Reference 2 - "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?"
  
• Reference 3 - "Hadley Circulations for Zonally Averaged Heating Centered off the Equator"
  
• . . . Google Scholar references

The biggest take away is "Gravity Wave" has a different interpretation in meterology versus the ones described in General Relativity. So far, detecting gravitational waves has been about as difficult as finding the Higgs boson but the Lindzen version appears to be a substitute for what we normally call tides. Still the tropics are not an area I've been looking at, yet.

So let's see a sampling of Skeptical Science on Lindzen: What is the net feedback from clouds?

Myth: Clouds provide negative feedback

"Climate models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that clouds provide a large positive feedback, greatly amplifying the small warming effect of increasing CO2 content in air. Clouds have made fools of climate modelers. A detailed analysis of cloud behavior from satellite data by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville shows that clouds actually provide a strong negative feedback, the opposite of that assumed by the climate modelers. The modelers confused cause and effect, thereby getting the feedback in the wrong direction." (Ken Gregory)
. . .
For climate scientists who are skeptical that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause a dangerous amount of warming, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, their skepticism hinges mainly on this cloud cover uncertainty. They tend to believe that as the planet warms, low-level cloud cover will increase, thus increasing planetary albedo (overall reflectiveness of the Earth), offsetting the increased greenhouse effect and preventing a dangerous level of global warming from occurring
. . .

​

So one technical issue is whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback. Near as I can tell, the data suggests "it depends." Stratus clouds at night can trap heat. During the day, the same clouds can reflect solar heat. But then the "cloud negative feedback" folks have this interesting problem that global warming continues to melt mountain glaciers, snow caps, and Arctic and Greenland ice. Furthermore, the sea level continues to rise.

So if the facts and data, the observations, are showing no hard evidence of negative cloud feedback versus evidence that CO{2} accelerated global warming continues, I suppose those who assert cloud negative feedback might get 'a little snippy.' Certainly they are in the climate denial camp . . . until their hypothesis get some support . . . and there is some.

The global models suggest the greatest warming shows up at the poles versus the tropics. It is entirely possible clouds in the tropics have a negative feedback effect not seen in more polar climates. For example, stratus clouds retain heat at night but reflect solar heat in the day. The Arctic is an area that has more, extended nights than the tropics where the clouds would retain heat.

To wrap it up, Professor Lindzen looks to have some work about the tropics that I may get around to. He is also looking at heat transport to the poles and that is something I'm looking at now. As for the rest, having gotten a necessarily quick scan of his work, nothing has changed.

Bob Wilson

 

Mojo, Bob,
I know when I am beaten. Sometimes you just can't keep an internet discussion on track.

I realize click bait, and affinity sites are much more popular than sites with neutral scientific information.

Mojo, it appears you are happy in your ignorance following wuwt. I don't think you will convince anyone here.

Bob, it appers you are happy to follow adhominem attacks, and ignore legitimate scientists because they don't adhere to the catastrophic story. Since most of this site probably agrees with you, you will find plenty of affinity here. Just not from me. And it is doubtful you will convince anyone that has an open mind.

 

I think we're going to agree to disagree about what is ad hominem:

Curious, I only cite what is posted at MIT, a Google Scholar list of links (subset as he has written a lot!), then to find out why he is in the denier camp (for now), a snippet from Skeptical Science. I really didn't know the man before you mentioned his name.

So now I understand why there is a difference of opinion between him and other climate scientists. If reading the man's work and what others report about his work is ad hominem, then sadly, we live in different universes. Heck, I still would not know about him except you hold him in high regard.

I don't take my science by the reputation of the man but rather from their work. As long as it remains reproducible and has no obvious analytical errors, I'm OK with it. It is the work, not the man that is important. Reputation does not create the value of the work (aka., The Emperor's New Clothes.) Reputation gives a man's work a reading, not blind acceptance (aka., cold fusion.)

So we'll just have to agree to disagree about what ad hominem means. After all, 'I see numbers' to turn the phrase 'I see dead people' from "The Sixth Sense".

Bob Wilson

 

Curious if you can find an example of bad information at WUWT.

 

Like I said, I know when I am beaten. The affinity sites don't put out known falsehoods, they simply leave out the parts of the story that goes against their point. Half a story is misleading. Please you and bob start your own thread about how great the affinity sites have done.

Ad hominem | Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

If you start out calling a name in this example "denier" then take someone's words out of context to make it seem like they are supporting a myth, then I call it an ad hominem attack. I don't quite understand how someone could belive name calling furthers a scientific argument, but there you go. I specifically thought the post you quoted from skeptical science in this instance took the climate scientist's words out of context to make them seem not true. This was a combination of a straw man and ad-hominen attack. Weather the rest of the opinion piece on the blog made sense or not, I could not get past the start. I included a resasoned link that displayed what I think are the scientific facts, and the area's that still need investigation. Its fairly clear that mojo either disagrees with the link or did not even watch.

 

To clarify, it comes down to the 2001 "Iris" paper, Lundzen, Chou, and Hou. Since then, others have pointed out the problems. So it remains under discussion. The Skeptical Science team sees this as counter to their models. But I'm more impressed by the increase in sea level:


One quote from the paper:

. . .
The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate, with a feedback factor of about -1.1, which if correct, would more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models. Even if regions of high humidity were not coupled to cloudiness, the feedback factor due to the clouds alone would still amount to about -0.45, which would cancel model water vapor feedback in almost all models. This new mechanism would, in effect, constitute an adaptive infrared iris that opens and closes in order to control the Outgoing Longwave Radiation in response to changes in surface temperature in a manner similar to the way in which an eye’s iris opens and closes in response to changing light levels. . . .​

Giving the paper the benefit of the doubt, it does say "water vapor feedback" and did not say CO{2} warming. Just I don't care for using a 'cloud of data' and running a straight-line average, a 'trend line', to look for a slope.

My interest remains on other topics but no doubt, I'll eventually get 'tar baby' back to this subject. But we'll do it on a fresh thread that addresses the technical issue. Meanwhile, the seas keep rising.

Bob Wilson

 

You could go back and edit:

• thread title - "please explain this" -> "please explain this antarctic record"
• 1st post - add "antarctic record" liberally to the first post

Works for me, would it be good for you?

I suppose we could read the original text around the graph:
Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum

Dr. Humlum runs a website called Climate 4 You where he presents a wide range of data related to paleoclimate. What caught my eye was that Dr. Humlum makes the same mistake that everyone else seems to make. They append the modern instrumental record on the end of the GISP2 data to suggest that current warming is nothing out of the ordinary. But as I've previously pointed out in Crux of a Core Part 1 and Part 2 this is in error. This is comparing one high latitude local proxy (GISP2) with the modern global record.
. . .
​

To make is easy to understand, it would as if someone where in a hot spring and took a temperature of the snow on the bank and then the pool and appended them together:

Not to worry, such behavior is expected from climate deniers and nothing new.

One of the curious aspects of global warming and climate change is there are regions that get cooler. Severe weather will also include blizzards and exceptional snow storms. So FOX news calls a blizzard proof there is no global warming and a Senator brings in a snowball. But ultimately such "bait and switch" doesn't matter.

The sea level, earth's thermometer, continues to rise.

Bob Wilson