Reconsidering the Climate Change Act

[LithiaWx]

http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

[TerryM]

Should Lindzen be added to the list of scientists in the pocket of Big Oil?

Despite having been quoted denying that he had been paid to do any research for oil or gas interests, it was later revealed that he had not only received $2,500 a day for frequent "consulting" services rendered to oil and gas interests for him to officially deny anthropogenic global warming, but that his much publicized report on the subject, "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. ^[55]

^{from Wiki}

[LithiaWx]

I saw that coming. When you can't argue the points he laid out go straight to trying to discredit the person based on actions from years ago. What he did in the past true or not has no bearing on what was said in the article. Do you have any thoughts about the content of the link or are you going to stick to discrediting the guy and ignoring the argument he is making? If you want to discredit something start with what the man said in the link. This is pretty much psychology 101.

tl:dr

Attack the idea not the person

[LakeEffectKing]

http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

Thanks for posting. I'll take the time and actually read through it later.....

[LithiaWx]

Thanks for posting. I'll take the time and actually read through it later.....

You're welcome, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. He lays out a very reasonable opinion and explains why he feels this way.

[TerryM]

I suppose I'll read the whole thing.

Wouldn't it be easier just to take the statement straight from his employer (the one he deny's working for) than from him.

After all, spokesmen for various industries have been known to get the message wrong from time to time.

On further thought I'd just get aggravated reading dis-proven lies coming from another paid stooge.

The man spouts garbage at a phenomenal rate - I think I'll pass.

[WeatherRusty]

I saw that coming. When you can't argue the points he laid out go straight to trying to discredit the person based on actions from years ago. What he did in the past true or not has no bearing on what was said in the article. Do you have any thoughts about the content of the link or are you going to stick to discrediting the guy and ignoring the argument he is making? If you want to discredit something start with what the man said in the link. This is pretty much psychology 101.

tl:dr

Attack the idea not the person

I will continue to discredit the guy based on the fact that he is and always has been a prominent skeptic who's ideas are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists.

Skeptics discredit the scientific consensus. We discredit single individuals...until their ideas are accepted by the greater scientific community. That community rejects Lindzen and his conclusions.

[WeatherRusty]

Lindzen specifically rejects the range given for climate sensitivity as determined by study after study after study. What more is there to discuss?

[TerryM]

I saw that coming. When you can't argue the points he laid out go straight to trying to discredit the person based on actions from years ago. What he did in the past true or not has no bearing on what was said in the article. Do you have any thoughts about the content of the link or are you going to stick to discrediting the guy and ignoring the argument he is making? If you want to discredit something start with what the man said in the link. This is pretty much psychology 101.

tl:dr

Attack the idea not the person

The ideas would not even be brought up if spouted by John, the unemployed carpet installer, at the bar. The only reason you posted this is because you are claiming that Lindzen has some claim to credibility - He does not.

[PhillipS]

Terry is right - the man spouts garbage at a phenomenal. Perhaps I have a stronger stomach so I'll try to find time to do a slide by slide debunking later.

But for now, let's just look at slide 4, specifically the red text on the upper left. The first two statements are fine and then he slips in a whopper. Lindzen -

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years. In actuality there has been about a 40% increase (from 280 ppm to 390 ppm).

The fourth statement is okay except it glosses over the fact that the 0.8 C rise is only the fast response change in temperature - there is additional warming in the pipeline.

And the last statement is also not true - the accepted value for the temperature rise due to DO2 alone is 1.2 C, not 1 C. Lindzen's 20% reduction in that value is disinformation.

Since a 40% increase in CO2 has caused a 0.8 C rise in global temperatures so far, that works out to a climate sensitivity of at least 2 C per doubling of CO2 (0.8/0.4).with feedbacks.

[LithiaWx]

The ideas would not even be brought up if spouted by John, the unemployed carpet installer, at the bar.The only reason you posted this is because you are claiming that Lindzen has some claim to credibility - He does not.

Really? Where? All i did was post a link. I've yet to give my opinion on the man's credibility. I read his opinion and found it to be pretty reasonable at face value. I'll go and research his ideas later on, as of right now I don't have an opinion on his credibility or the factual nature of his statements.

edit : btw Rusty, thanks for changing the word "you" to "skeptics" when quoting my post. You just saved me an entire post.

I will continue to discredit the guy based on the fact that he is and always has been a prominent skeptic who's ideas are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists.

Skeptics discredit the scientific consensus. We discredit single individuals...until their ideas are accepted by the greater scientific community. That community rejects Lindzen and his conclusions.

[WeatherRusty]

Terry is right - the man spouts garbage at a phenomenal. Perhaps I have a stronger stomach so I'll try to find time to do a slide by slide debunking later.

But for now, let's just look at slide 4, specifically the red text on the upper left. The first two statements are fine and then he slips in a whopper. Lindzen -

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years. In actuality there has been about a 40% increase (from 280 ppm to 390 ppm).

The fourth statement is okay except it glosses over the fact that the 0.8 C rise is only the fast response change in temperature - there is additional warming in the pipeline.

And the last statement is also not true - the accepted value for the temperature rise due to DO2 alone is 1.2 C, not 1 C. Lindzen's 20% reduction in that value is disinformation.

Since a 40% increase in CO2 has caused a 0.8 C rise in global temperatures so far, that works out to a climate sensitivity of at least 2 C per doubling of CO2 (0.8/0.4).with feedbacks.

In the interest of accuracy, I will point out a misconception here. Also, having been accused of only "attacking the other side" I feel the need to dispel that as well.

Carbon Dioxide equivalent forcing is different than CO2 forcing alone. Lindzen is somewhat correct, but not quite. Equivalent forcing has not fully doubled but it is higher than CO2 alone. Most of the additional forcing has been offset by the negative forcing produced by aerosol pollution.

Read this SS article for details HERE

[TerryM]

Just added Lindzen to the Paid shills and Trolls thread.

Somewhere, one would think, there must be an honest, but misguided climate scientist who thinks AGW is wrong. Thus far all we have seen are jerks in the pay of propaganda organizations.

I've long heard that 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW - where are the other 3%?

[LakeEffectKing]

I will continue to discredit the guy based on the fact that he is and always has been a prominent skeptic who's ideas are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists.

Skeptics discredit the scientific consensus. We discredit single individuals...until their ideas are accepted by the greater scientific community. That community rejects Lindzen and his conclusions.

With this line of thinking, how are new ideas ever to be entertained that alter the course of science??? Sounds closed minded.

[LithiaWx]

then why make a thread about him if you have no idea if he's credible or not? why not do the research on him to see his past history instead?

When a MIT professor makes a presentation that I find interesting I want to explore discussion on it. I made a judgement call without doing hours and hours of research first, which I will do later. In the mean time I wanted to present the presentation for discussion on the board, that's all.

[WeatherRusty]

With this line of thinking, how are new ideas ever to be entertained that alter the course of science??? Sounds closed minded.

Research, evidence and repeated analysis are what persuades. Not the person presenting it.

[LithiaWx]

which is one of the biggest problems in this forum--people jump on stuff that appeals to their uninformed opinions without applying any critical thinking.

Please explain what problem you have with having a discussion on a presentation done by a MIT professor? I don't need to know if the guy is credible to have a discussion on the contents of his presentation. I'll do my own research later on his credibility. Again, attack the ideas presented not the person presenting them. If someone says a day on earth is 24 hours, their credibility doesn't change the answer being right or wrong.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You're welcome, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. He lays out a very reasonable opinion and explains why he feels this way.

I know I am a pretty big dork and can throw away 30 min posting a ton of graphics and text.

Why don't you bring into this thread his points and use some of the real time data we have out there and start making arguements.

Once you do that, then we can counter argue.

Now that would be a nice debate on one platform. Forget that guy, if you like his data, then use it however you want to present YOUR arguement.

[toronto blizzard]

Just added Lindzen to the Paid shills and Trolls thread.

Somewhere, one would think, there must be an honest, but misguided climate scientist who thinks AGW is wrong. Thus far all we have seen are jerks in the pay of propaganda organizations.

I've long heard that 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW - where are the other 3%?

Don't let that 97% of climate scientists fool you.

[LithiaWx]

I know I am a pretty big dork and can throw away 30 min posting a ton of graphics and text.

Why don't you bring into this thread his points and use some of the real time data we have out there and start making arguements.

Once you do that, then we can counter argue.

Now that would be a nice debate on one platform. Forget that guy, if you like his data, then use it however you want to present YOUR arguement.

I don't have an opinion on the matter. I am also not in a position to present one that would hold any credence. I'm here to learn about climate change. The only opinion I do have is that we are not headed towards catastrophe in my lifetime. Any changes will be slow and gradual, leaving plenty of time for mankind to adapt. This forum is dominated by alarmists and I felt it was appropriate to present the other side to the coin. The link in the OP outlined that side better than I could ever do so I'll leave the OP as it is without adding my opinion which means nothing on this subject.

[The_Global_Warmer]

With this line of thinking, how are new ideas ever to be entertained that alter the course of science??? Sounds closed minded.

Sounds like The absurd amount of people who believe Diet Soda is actually worse for you than a regular soda.

There is nothing in Diet Coke(unless they are putting cyanide in it) that is worse than taking in somewhere from 40-46G/12oz of HFCS or Dextrose. That amount of suger could take 3-4 hours to process so Insulin will make regular intervals into the blood stream, precluding the chance for important growth hormones to be released.

Apparently if you take down like 150G of sugar before bed you may not get a large release of HGH if you do not sleep long enough.

Simply logic without even a deep end chemist degree would say that if the in abscence of carbs this process is muted, mitigated or not near as insulin sensative. Then more of the favorable hormones that supply us with youth and vigor would be present.

Low and behold actual studies show uniformly and nearly unanimously that this is true and Humans can eat Fat and Protein exclusively and become much more healthy, vital.

I remember when I did my first cycle. I remember this woman I worked with at Target, I was 19. About 19 and 4 months. Iv'e never had a father so I have always been very inquisitive and curious about finding truth and reality, since I was never taught a thing about it. The hinderance of that is enormous, a man who grew up with a caring and loving dad could never understand what he really has there. Regardless of that his fathers intelligence.

Anyways this 55 yr old lady told me she lost 100 lbs in 12 months of eating low carbs. I was like lol what are carbs. Anyways, she told me she did Atkins, I went home and researched it. This was 2001, the only places who were on board were Atkins and those body building sites that are like this weather board, the ones full of enthusiasts that take their work to another level.

The science was enough. Clnical studies showed that the eating program worked and over a long period 2-6months your body adapts to the fat fuel burning process as if it was a natural thing. It teaches it self to become a bodily furnace, not needing so much food for fuel. You won't be burning off as much fat, but it shows the adaptation that takes place.

Anyways, I remember for the first 5 weeks of 10 carbs per day or less and mostly fat and about 75mg of protein per day. With very little exercise I went from 191 to 165. It was unreal.

On top of that, my overall mood and well being changed dramatically. Just much more stable and happy everyday all day.

The bolded I think represents Food and Drug Administration, Carb addiction and every profiting company that needs carb use to make money vs science.

the only thing is. All of the science says that is right.

When it comes to AGW, all of the science says that as GHG concentrations rise in the ammosphere the Earth will retain heat over a long period and warm and the baseline equilibrium over a long enough period will rise.

We have seen this taking place faster and faster over a long period.

This is exactly what the science expects. It seems to me the only issue is what will the feedbacks do,

I would say this cooling period enforces parts of the AGW process even better.

1. The snow and ice albedo feedback in the arctic has caused the arctic to continue to warm. This is also the place on earth with the highest level of GHGs, coincidentally ussually in winter when the highest OLR anomalies take place. There is warming feedbacks causing that part of the Earth to be far warmer than the rest is trending with the other factors taking place.

2. the natural factors have stopped warming and have possibly gone towards a cool period.

3. The huge amount of stored heat and positive feedbacks is causing the Earth to not be able to cool much so far at the LT level. And almost none globally at the surface level becuase of the positive feedbacks north of 60.

Now a few questions to go forward:

1. How will the ever increasing amount of GHGS into the atmosphere affect the current cool phase?

2. How will they affect the next warm phase

3. How much cooler will it get?

4. If it doesn't get cooler persay, how long will it stall out around this plateau.

5. How large of an impact will the arctic positive feedbacks have on all of this?

6. Will any major events throw off the trend now, like a Volcano or large release of methane?

So if you have access to science data that shows these assumptions are wrong please post it. There is nothing more fun than learning everything we can about this and sharing ideas and data.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't have an opinion on the matter. I am also not in a position to present one that would hold any credence. I'm here to learn about climate change. The only opinion I do have is that we are not headed towards catastrophe in my lifetime. Any changes will be slow and gradual, leaving plenty of time for mankind to adapt. This forum is dominated by alarmists and I felt it was appropriate to present the other side to the coin. The link in the OP outlined that side better than I could ever do so I'll leave the OP as it is without adding my opinion which means nothing on this subject.

So we should take your opinon that changes will be slow and gradual and throw it away because it means nothing.

First off, your opinon doesn't mean nothing. Your opinion means much more than whomever you linked. This Climate Science is mostly built on observational data. That speaks volumes more than anyones opinion. Don Sutherland uses these techniques for his broadbrush weekly, monthly and long term forecasts and he seems to be doing a hell of a job letting the data speak for him. The funniet part of his forecasts is how he openly talks about incorporating the warming changes since the climo and analogs lag behind this.

He has made almost all of his forecasts more accurate and reliable with this. Yet, he does this and folks come out of the woodwork to complain he is pushing some AGW agenda even though this makes the ACCURACY of his forecasts better.

So once that is done, he still has not expressed an opinion, One way or another he just used the data in the proper context and accepted it as truth instead of ignoring it or listening to someone elses opinion telling him it was irrelevent.

I think you are more than capable of backing your opinion on why you think it will be slow and gradual compared to whatever is considered rapid.

The best way to learn something is through hands on work. IIRC, you proved the validity of your hands on work when you nailed the Hudson Bay Ice Freeze based on Meteorlogy data you already knew. Yet, during that period many of these folks were on my train. Because I just had a run of predicting the sea ice gains and loses very well. After quite a bit of time obsessing over learning about the workings of the arctic, it became rather simple to forecast short term. I arrogently walked over to the Hudson and my results were terrible because I failed to see something you already knew and that put your forecast far better than mine.

[WeatherRusty]

Friv is on a roll tonight! Good stuff. Cogent and insightful.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't have an opinion on the matter. I am also not in a position to present one that would hold any credence. I'm here to learn about climate change. The only opinion I do have is that we are not headed towards catastrophe in my lifetime. Any changes will be slow and gradual, leaving plenty of time for mankind to adapt. This forum is dominated by alarmists and I felt it was appropriate to present the other side to the coin. The link in the OP outlined that side better than I could ever do so I'll leave the OP as it is without adding my opinion which means nothing on this subject.

Is anyone who allows for the full range of uncertainty an alarmist? If in one hundred years the global temp is 3C warmer than today and sea level is a 1 1/2 feet higher than today should that be considered an alarmist expectation? I would say so, yet those figures represent a rather middling outcome in the range of probability. Somewhat higher or lower figures are consistent with the science as we understand it today. Uncertainty is not our friend or a good reason to ignore this threat.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Is anyone who allows for the full range of uncertainty an alarmist? If in one hundred years the global temp is 3C warmer than today and sea level is a 1 1/2 feet higher than today should that be considered an alarmist expectation? I would say so, yet those figures represent a rather middling outcome in the range of probability. Somewhat higher or lower figures are consistent with the science as we understand it today. Uncertainty is not our friend or a good reason to ignore this threat.

Doesn't the IPCC pretty much ignore Snow and Ice so far in the feedbacks? I think they slighty mention them, but I can't recall if they do it in any great detail.

Just gooing by the Walsh/Chapman Data we can decifer a rough estimate of available W/m2 vs the past as a forcing.

Alright, the Min Pre WW2 were 11,000,000km2 on the average and around 8,500,000km2 min extents. this coolaborates well with USSR historical snow cover data going back to the early 1900s. The rapid Spring snow melt off over the Northern Hemisphere now also correlates with the lowest sea ice extents we have on this record. We also have extensive Glacier recrods from scientists and explorers showing the melting started a century ago. And likely longer and even slower.

Regardless if we take the Summer averages and use them against the long term means:

1870-1965: The summer ice extent was typically 11,000,000km2. Some more, some less. But very STABLE.

2007-2011 The summer ice extent was typically 5,750,000km2. So a reduction of 5,250,000km2.

So this is not a one hundred percent vs one hundred percent thing.

Part of that open water has ice in it still or very nearby. But still the vast majority should be considered the average amount of extra open water in millions of square kilometers that has an albedo of 0.7-0.8 vs ice that is .50 Melting, .6-.7 frozen. On top of that is less snow albedo, so .5 to .65 melting and .75 to .85 frozen.

If we assume the extra space gets 200W/M2 vs 50 W/M2.

5,250,000,000 x 200 = 1,050,000,000,000W/m2 VS 262,500,000,000W/m2.

This goes directly into heating the water once the ice is gone. They found in the Laptev, hundreds of miles off the shore. 3C water, 10 meters down. This was when the Surface was in the 5-7C range, right at the peak of the insolation/heat storage apex.

Pre right now. That didn't happen in the arctic. On top of that, we know this is the cause of the recent methane rises. We have the sea ice receeding enough to add 750 billion W/M2 give or take a few hundred billion directly into the waters every summer. We have buoys with amazing technology now measuring the actual solar insolation per day in W/M2 throughout the water column.

We can see here that the water collumn under the ice was recieving raditation. This is around 78-79N while the sun was still up. The Buoy moved less than 100 miles in any direction, this shows good continuity in the instrumental data.

Looking at those three graphs, I would assume when the buoy was deployed the ice concentration was still decent in the area. As August wore on and max insolation was still going on. The ice thinned some as well as the local concentration. Then you can see the heat build up. DF

Deployment of bouy day

We can see the buoy was in 50-75% concentration ice on 6.25 mile square areas. So there was plenty of water getting the detected insolation between the ice floes. This sits around 50% for 2.5 weeks after this, before the bouy is pushed towards 79N and the ice consolidates and the insolation starts to weaken.

BLACK ARROW: The ice about 2-3 weeks before that was 85-95% concentration or more. You can see the water was colder and the warm layer below the ice was smaller.

RED ARROW: As the insolation beared down and the open water increased you can see the heat layer expand rapidly to the surface and expand down to the previously trapped heat flowing well below the origional Surface COLD LAYER from the last freeze up.

You can see from August 5th on to late August that layer about Surface to 75M recieved .6 to 1.0W/m2 per day with half concentration to Seventy Five percent. This correlates very well to the roughly 2-2.5w/m2 that the water can take in full insolation with no ice.

Conclusion: We have physical proof that this positive feedback is putting more heat into the Arctic Ocean. Some of which is used to melt the ice, some heats the water, and some is stored in a new Warm Layer that travels under the ice during the winter only to enforce ice melt once the summer cap break and reaches that layer. Which also gives huge credence to the rapid bottom melts seen in August in the beaufort. Instead of a 150-200M wide cold fresh layer that has to be heated up for bottom melt That layer is much smaller in this part of the arctic and once it is dissolved there is a constant flow of water to warm to sustain the ice at the bottom. This is just a differnt method of ice melting than direct sun light. It's just a middle step in the process.

In places like the Laptev and Kara the shallow areas like 30-50 Meters are either cold and fresh or warm up rapidly. So the ice can not sustain there for a summer.

However in places like the Beaufort it takes longer with the deeper water and subsequent larger cold layer. Now that cold layer is going away and the arctic melt has been dramatically altered to be able to melt off more ice in the same amount of time.

These are all processes up there. Something I would love to see is where some of that heat goes? DOes it stay in the arctic or make it out of there and get released somewhere else? What is the distribution?

Anyways, I didn't mean to rant on. But this is just one example of forming opinion and showing concrete evidence for a direct forcing that would warm the Earth that is likely caused by humans.

[donsutherland1]

This Climate Science is mostly built on observational data. That speaks volumes more than anyones opinion. Don Sutherland uses these techniques for his broadbrush weekly, monthly and long term forecasts and he seems to be doing a hell of a job letting the data speak for him. The funniet part of his forecasts is how he openly talks about incorporating the warming changes since the climo and analogs lag behind this.

He has made almost all of his forecasts more accurate and reliable with this. Yet, he does this and folks come out of the woodwork to complain he is pushing some AGW agenda even though this makes the ACCURACY of his forecasts better.

So once that is done, he still has not expressed an opinion, One way or another he just used the data in the proper context and accepted it as truth instead of ignoring it or listening to someone elses opinion telling him it was irrelevent.

If one is trying to forecast for the extended range where uncertainty is greatest, one simply needs all the tools one can get. Analogs over some insight. However, one can't forecast as if one were dealing with the climate of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or some other past era. One takes on unnecessary risk of error if one does not try to take into consideration today's climate.

In addition, I accept the consensus findings of climate science. Clearly, there are areas of uncertainty (some of which will be further addressed in the next IPCC Assessment), but the basic scientific explanation for climate change is strongly supported by the data. No alternative rationale adequately explains the evolution of the climate, including a decoupling from the natural forcings since the 1950s and afterward. Climate change is also corroborated by developments such as decreasing Arctic sea ice, shifting plant zones, glacier retreat, expanded growing seasons, etc.

[Jonger]

Terry is right - the man spouts garbage at a phenomenal. Perhaps I have a stronger stomach so I'll try to find time to do a slide by slide debunking later.

But for now, let's just look at slide 4, specifically the red text on the upper left. The first two statements are fine and then he slips in a whopper. Lindzen -

There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years. In actuality there has been about a 40% increase (from 280 ppm to 390 ppm).

The fourth statement is okay except it glosses over the fact that the 0.8 C rise is only the fast response change in temperature - there is additional warming in the pipeline.

And the last statement is also not true - the accepted value for the temperature rise due to DO2 alone is 1.2 C, not 1 C. Lindzen's 20% reduction in that value is disinformation.

Since a 40% increase in CO2 has caused a 0.8 C rise in global temperatures so far, that works out to a climate sensitivity of at least 2 C per doubling of CO2 (0.8/0.4).with feedbacks.

So we double the numbper because your pals rationalized the lack of warming. To feedbacks, aka "excuses".

Face it global warming science is a business... Scientists have a field that requires funding and they aren't going to seek answers that differ from the desired outcomes.

[Jonger]

The arctic ice has been melting since the last ice age. There hasn't been a period of increasing glaciation for over 15,000 years. The ice can only go one way... Down.

[PhillipS]

The arctic ice has been melting since the last ice age. There hasn't been a period of increasing glaciation for over 15,000 years. The ice can only go one way... Down.

Your entire assertion is false and is very easy to debunk. The current melting is revealing environments and artifacts that were buried by advancing glaciers and ice sheets. Here's an excerpt from one article in ScienceNews:

The largest glacial ice cap in the tropics,

Quelccaya

, lies in Peru. As it’s been retreating, it occasionally uncovers surprises that had been buried as the glacier grew. Melting recently uncovered one wetland region that had been buried under ice for more than 5,000 years, revealing some 50 different members of the botanical community that once thrived there.

And here's a link to a whole webpage listing papers on what's been unconvered by retreating glaciers. Many glaciers were advancing prior to a century or so ago, consistent with the gradual global cooling prior to the modern anthropogenic warming.

It would be refreshing if you did a bit of investigation before posting this sort of nonsense. You might learn something.

[PhillipS]

So we double the numbper because your pals rationalized the lack of warming. To feedbacks, aka "excuses".

Face it global warming science is a business... Scientists have a field that requires funding and they aren't going to seek answers that differ from the desired outcomes.

Natural climate variability has been a recognized reality for as long as climates have been studied. Just because research results falsify your biases doesn't make them "excuses".

Do you ever do a reality check and wonder why the scientists working on staff for the fossil fuel industries and the scientists on grants from the fossil fuel industries have never come up with viable alternatives to mainstream AGW? Is it possible, just possible mind you, that the thousands of scientists who have collected and analyzed the mountain of climate related data know more than you do, and they are correct about why the Earth is warming and what the consequences will be?