Climate: Why I Believe, What It Would Take To Change My Mind

Rick wrote: This is going to be rather difficult to debate based on the scientific terms I'm not familiar with but i will attempt to meet your basic requirements. There is a ton of stuff so I'll just pick out a section or two.


Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Richard Lindzen

Reconciling observations of global temperature change
Richard S. Lindzen and Constantine Giannitsis
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Received 13 September 2001; revised 11 February 2002; accepted 28 February 2002; published XX Month 2002

What seems likely is that, as
has been frequently noted, the period is too short to infer
trends from any of the series since the trends estimated
depend greatly on the subintervals chosen. The effective
agreement of the satellite and radiosonde data, however,
permits us to consider longer periods. Before turning to the
longer records, however, it should be stressed that there is
no rigorous reason to suppose that atmospheric and surface
temperatures need track each other arbitrarily closely especially
over short periods, and changes in each can represent
a variety of mechanisms. Changes in oceanic upwelling and
downwelling, for example, can directly impact surface
temperature without directly impacting mid tropospheric
temperatures. Greenhouse warming, on the other hand,
impacts emission levels (ca 5 km) first, with the warming
communicated to the surface through a variety of mechanisms,
and with the surface temperature subject to ocean
delay [Lindzen and Emanuel, 2001]. The absence of midtropospheric
warming would, therefore, tend to rule out
greenhouse warming.

4. Concluding Remarks
[6] Comparing radiosonde global averaged temperatures
for the troposphere with surface temperatures over the
period since 1964, shows that the gross trends are almost
the same. This contrasts with similar comparisons since
1979 where trends for the troposphere from both radiosondes
and microwave sounders are nearly zero in contrast
to increases of about a couple of tenths of a degree C for
surface data. The longer series suggests that the increase in
tropospheric temperature occurred rather abruptly around
1976, three years before microwave observations began.
The suddenness of the tropospheric temperature change
seems distinctly unlike what one expects from greenhouse
warming, while the relative rapidity with which the surface
temperature caught up with the troposphere, less than about
10 years, suggests low climate sensitivity for a wide range
of choices for thermocline diffusion.
[7] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by grants
ATM9813795 from the National Science Foundation, DEFG02-
93ER61673 from the Department of Energy, and NAG5-5147 from National
Aeronautics and Space. The authors wish to specifically
thank John Christy for supplying current MSU results.
[8] The Editor would like to thank the reviewers of this manuscript.

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203 ... 014074.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerrev ... cs.php?s=6

Dr. LIndzen's research has been widely reported. First to clarify a few things about his position. He does agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. He does agree that man's activities are a leading cause in global warming largely due to production of carbon dioxide. Where he dissents is in the overall effect of global warming.
Dr. LIndzen has a hypothesis the climate is not sensitive to global warming due to cloud cover. Therefore according to his hypothesis, there is no need to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This stance has of course made him extremely popular with the climate change deniers, energy companies, anti-climate change politicians, and of course the Heartland Institute.

For purposes of debate, I will try to put his stance into simpler terms. While low lying clouds act to cool the surface temperatures, high atmospheric clouds act as a lid, allowing sunlight to pass through to the surface while preventing the surface heat from escaping back into the atmosphere. Water vapor increases with increased temperatures to further form clouds. The dispute is to what kind of clouds will be formed, low or high and how will that impact the effect from global warming. Essentially Dr. Lindzen's position is that the increase in water vapor will have a "cooling" effect on global warming, although that position has now changed to a hypothesis that the increase in cloud cover is driving the increase in surface temperatures not the other way around and that the climate will not be sensitive to global warming due to cloud cover. Dr. Lindzen criticizes current climatology models for not incorporating his theories into those models.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen ... i-2011.pdf

This is rebutted by nearly all others in the scientific community. One leading critic of the Lindzen is Dr. Andrew Dessler, climatologist researcher at Texas A&M. He published a paper in 2011 that destroyed Lindzen's hypothesis by pointing that the assumptions made by Lindzen were not supported by obvservational data, that the assumptions made by Lindzen violated the laws of thermodynamics, and that the ratio of ocean heat transport to top of the atmosphere energy flux was not 2 as assumed by Lindzen but 20, an order of magnitude that greatly affected the hypothesis of Lindzen. He also found numerous examples of cherrypicking data by Lindzen in order to support his hypothesis.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

Dr. Alexander Trenberth is another leading critic of Lindzen's hypothesis. He found that that Lindzen subjectively picked the starting and end points of his "data" to support his hypothesis, and when an objective standard was used, that hypothesis failed, that Lindzen failed to account for other factors in the interaction between ocean and atmosphere, that even when the Lindzen hypothesis was factored into models, it had no significant changes in the model, and that Lindzen failed to use the correct equations in his hypothesis.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... unraveled/

Numerous other esteemed climate researchers have also found errors in the assumptions and methodology used by Dr. Lindzen, such as Daniel Murphy, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1/abstract
and Dr. Chung et al. who replicated Lindzen's hypothesis on a global scale (Lindzen only used a tropical model) and refuted Lindzen's observations.

Basically, Dr. Lindzen's hypothesis that clouds dampen the sensitivity of the climate to global warming was found to be extremely flawed, based on such flaws as wrong assumptions, wrong data, cherrypicking data, incorrect equations, too small a data set, selecting only the tropics for his model, etc. It has not been supported by any other credible research.
The original research was published in 2009 and universally condemned. Even Dr. Lindzen admitted that his examples were stupid and embarrassing. He revised the paper and submitted in 2011 for publication in Proceedings in the National Academy of Science. It was peer reviewed and rejected. Two of the peers were selected by Dr. Lindzen and two by the Academy. All four reviewers found that the quality of the research was not acceptable, that the conclusions were not justified, and 3 of the four found that the procedures were not adequately explained. They suggested revisions but Lindzen either refused or could not meet those suggestions.
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-conten ... ttach3.pdf

The paper was later published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science which is published by the Korean Meteorological Society.

Dr. Lindzen is held in high esteem generally but his research has been resoundingly rebutted. No one has been able to replicate his research and arrive at his results. Fault has been found with his methodology and his assumptions. I do find his research interesting but as of this time, it can not be considered convincing, particularly when his hypothesis has not been supported by actual data nor correlated by any other research. I look forward to your response in supporting his hypothesis.

Rick, to save you time, here are other "scientific" sources used by climate change deniers. I have reviewed their research and theories and find them lacking as well.

William Gray, professor emeritus, CSU - his position is that ocean currents are causing global warming

Judith Curry, climatologist at Georgia Tech - her position is that we just don't know.

William Harper, physicist at Princeton - Carbon dioxide is good.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama, Heartland Institute expert - climate is not sensitive to greenhouse gases.

Roy Spencer, colleague of Christy, same views.

Freeman Dyson, physicist, mathematician, brilliant -- AGW exists, not sure of end results.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Rick, to save you time, here are other "scientific" sources used by climate change deniers. I have reviewed their research and theories and find them lacking as well.

William Gray, professor emeritus, CSU - his position is that ocean currents are causing global warming

Judith Curry, climatologist at Georgia Tech - her position is that we just don't know.

William Harper, physicist at Princeton - Carbon dioxide is good.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama, Heartland Institute expert - climate is not sensitive to greenhouse gases.

Roy Spencer, colleague of Christy, same views.

Freeman Dyson, physicist, mathematician, brilliant -- AGW exists, not sure of end results.

When the other side tries to get a jump on your sources, you can be sure there is something there that they don't want you to see.

Dog and WhiteGP set the rules and now they are telling you ahead of time that that they don't agree with these peer reviewed folk, so "nothing to see here."

You find them "lacking?" Really, because they don't agree with you 100%. Because they agree there is some warming, some warming that man has contributed to, but they don't agree that ANY scientist has SETTLED proof of the final outcome.

I didn't know scientists were fortune tellers?

I'll take Dyson or Curry over anyone online posting anonymously as Dog or WhiteGp.

Rick... keep digging, start with the folk above.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Rick, to save you time, here are other "scientific" sources used by climate change deniers. I have reviewed their research and theories and find them lacking as well.

William Gray, professor emeritus, CSU - his position is that ocean currents are causing global warming

Judith Curry, climatologist at Georgia Tech - her position is that we just don't know.

William Harper, physicist at Princeton - Carbon dioxide is good.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama, Heartland Institute expert - climate is not sensitive to greenhouse gases.

Roy Spencer, colleague of Christy, same views.

Freeman Dyson, physicist, mathematician, brilliant -- AGW exists, not sure of end results.

When the other side tries to get a jump on your sources, you can be sure there is something there that they don't want you to see.

Dog and WhiteGP set the rules and now they are telling you ahead of time that that they don't agree with these peer reviewed folk, so "nothing to see here."

You find them "lacking?" Really, because they don't agree with you 100%. Because they agree there is some warming, some warming that man has contributed to, but they don't agree that ANY scientist has SETTLED proof of the final outcome.

I didn't know scientists were fortune tellers?

I'll take Dyson or Curry over anyone online posting anonymously as Dog or WhiteGp.

Rick... keep digging, start with the folk above.

Gee W******, I thought I was on your "ignore" list. Why don't you join the debate rather than directing Rick what to do? Tell us why you find the research of Dyson and Curry to be so convincing? Or are you just posting to be "hateful"?

I am more than happy to discuss the findings of Dyson and Curry and why I find their positions to be not well supported. I find Dyson to be an absolutely brilliant individual, but Curry appears only to be politically oriented. She has been proven wrong so many times that she has little credibility among her peers.
Dr. Dyson is one of the most brilliant minds in the last one hundred years, but at age 91, I do not accept his dismissals of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide accumulation is caused by mankind, but he dismisses any lasting effects of it based upon his belief that science will create genetically modified trees within 50 years that will absorb the carbon dioxide before it permanently changes the climate. Dyson does not dispute global warming, AGW, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, increased greenhouse emissions, but wants more evidence that these are bad things. That attitude is not supported by 97% of the climate scientists who are of the opinion that unchecked AGW could lead to catastrophic conditions within the next 50 years.
The position of Dyson, Curry and others are not based upon scientific principles but on economic or moral principles. Dyson has repeatedly stated that he believes protecting the biosphere is of lesser importance than war, unemployment and poverty. That is a fine and understandable philosophical viewpoint, but that is not a scientific principle. I do not believe that understanding climate change is an either/or proposition, but is a necessary step for the survival of mankind. It does not have to be in place of fighting unemployment and poverty, but in conjunction with those issues.

I have yet to find credible scientific evidence that would lead me to change my position (not trying to preempt ScienceChic, but adding my views) that AGW is a serious threat, that global warming is occurring, that climate change is a real and dangerous threat. My personal opinions are that there is a three step process. (1) proving that global warming is occurring and affecting climate change. (2) proving that mankind is a significant cause of global warming and that steps can be taken to reduce or mitigate the threats posed by global warming. (3) balancing the cost of that reduction or mitigation with the costs of not taking those actions.
At this time, my opinion is that (1) and (2) have been proven with a high degree of certainty. Rather than continuing to deflect from (3), we should be evaluating what can be done, what the costs of taking actions in that regard and what the costs of doing nothing will be. Then an informed decision can be made rather than just burying our heads in the sand.

Here is a link to a thoughtful exchange between Freeman Dyson and a journalist that fairly portrays the differences between Dr. Dyson and the scientific community.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24912.html

Rick... don't let him cut you off at the pass.

Judith Curry

http://judithcurry.com/

Freeman Dyson (this is just one link/story. You can find tons of output from this man)

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/20 ... stein.html

Why do you put the burden on Rick? Why not enter the debate rather than coaching someone else from the sideline? What is scaring you?

http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/12/esperetal2014b.jpg?resize=580%2C434
\
No worries, this comes from a pre-discredited source.

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/18/new-study...ow-a-downward-trend/

"New Study: Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures Show a Downward Trend
Anthony Watts / 4 days ago December 18, 2014
In a paper published in the Journal of Quaternary Science, Esper et al. (2014) write that tree-ring chronologies of maximum latewood density (MXD) “are most suitable to reconstruct annually resolved summer temperature variations of the late Holocene.” And working with what they call “the world’s two longest MXD-based climate reconstructions” – those of Melvin et al. (2013) and Esper et al. (2012) – they combined portions of each to produce a new-and-improved summer temperature history for northern Europe that stretches all the way “from 17 BC to the present.” And what did they thereby learn?

As the international team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Sweden and Switzerland describes it, this history depicts “a long-term cooling trend of -0.30°C per 1,000 years over the Common Era in northern Europe” (see figure below). Most important of all, however, they note that their temperature reconstruction “has centennial-scale variations superimposed on this trend,” which indicate that “conditions during Medieval and Roman times were probably warmer than in the late 20th century,” when the previously-rising post-Little Ice Age mean global air temperature hit a ceiling of sorts above which it has yet to penetrate."...