Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

Hardly. A simple search on Google Scholar shows an impressive number

Maybe if you want to count all those op-eds. Searching on the last decade reveals a total of 2 papers in reasonable quality journal;s, neither of any real importance.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?st...dzen&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014

Richard Lindzen's research has had demonstrable impact on his field of atmospheric science. You are of course free to argue that atmospheric science is unrelated to climate science.

Atmospheric science and climate science are NOT the same thing and any real work he's done in either turned out to be a dead end decades ago.

Are you at all familiar with his work? I am. The primary hypothesis he keeps going back to was discarded by the climate science community back in the 1990 because if correct it would have rendered exiting a glaciation all but impossible.

It looks as though you, lomiller, "are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities."

Seems you should have done a little more homework before making a claim like this.

It would be better to address the substance of Lindzen's research.

He hasn't done any substantive work in decades. There is nothing to refute.

For example, you might note that Lindzen's Iris hypothesis is now generally regarded as unsupported or refuted, although Lindzen and Roy Spencer continue to promote it.

Per above, his iris hypothesis was discarded by the mainstream climate science community 2 decades ago because you can't explain the earths climate history with a low climate sensitivity. It makes things like glaciation and de-glaciation impossible.

Nearly all his work since then has been aimed at looking for enough wiggle room to keep cloud formation error bars large enough that he can still claim it's "a possibility" but even that has passed him by. He is not a major contributor to climate science and hasn't been for a long long time.

It looks as though you, lomiller, "are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities."

Perhaps you should have done a little more homework before saying silly things like this. As it stands one has to wonder about why you think someone who hasn't been a major contributor for decades is a relevant voice in a fast moving field.

 

[lomiller]

Had lomiller been criticizing Lindzen's role outside academia, the criticism might have had merit. lomiller's specific criticisms of Lindzen's academic record had no merit.

We should not support false allegations just because we agree with the political agenda of those making the false allegations.

Per my post above. You should familiarize yourself with his work before jumping to conclusions about it's merit. Unlike you I actually know what Lindzen has and hasn't done.

 

[DC]

"A laborer is worthy of their hire" Luke 10:7
"A worker is worthy his keep" Luke 10:6
What's goin on in the 60 weather cycle? What's going on with Cook and the 97% concensus? What's goin on with the 60 year weather cycle and those GW computer models? "What's goin on?" Marvin Gaye

tell us more about the research into that cycle you are talking about.

 

[ABC10]

Smear of retired Doc Richard of MIT does not make Mann of Penn State look better.

 

[lomiller]

Smear of retired Doc Richard of MIT does not make Mann of Penn State look better.

Lindzen
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?st...dzen&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014

Mann
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?st...dzen&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014

The difference in number of papers, quality of journal and citations is huge. Mann is clearly a very respected climate scientist. while Lindzen is clearly trying to take his case to the media because it's already been rejected by his peers.

Also worth nothing is that you are the one trying to draw comparisons between the two...

 

[DC]

Smear of retired Doc Richard of MIT does not make Mann of Penn State look better.

well comparing Lindzen's Iris hypothesis and Mann's Reconstruction. Mann's reconstructions stood the test of time. New reconstructions / data confirmed his conclusions form the reconstruction.
Lindzen's hypothesis was not so successful. Not to belittle Linzen's contribution to science and education on the topic, but lately he didn't "look" very good anymore in the scientific arena.
Mann came out victorious in all his battles in the scientific arena in regard to his reconstruction.

but that is all irrelevant.
AGW is a multidisciplinary problem. single scientists and their reputation don't matter.

 

[a_unique_person]

Smear of retired Doc Richard of MIT does not make Mann of Penn State look better.

It's not a smear to state the facts. His contributions to the current state of the science have been paltry and of poor quality. His contributions to climate denial, on the other hand, have been energetic and vociferous, while having no actual research to back up his wishful thinking.

 

[temporalillusion]

Lindzen
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?st...dzen&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014

Mann
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?st...dzen&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014

Your second link goes to Lindzen too, should be http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=...tnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014 I think.

Not that ABC10 will look at them or respond to the difference.

 

[Corsair 115]

Consensus and peer review.

So you're on the side of worldwide conspiracy? Then by all means present your evidence. Do explain how your purported explanations above explain evidence published by scientists around the world for some thirty years. That's a lot of studies, a lot of different authors, over a long period of time. I await with fascination.

You do have actual evidence to present, right?

(By the way, if your alleged reasons carried any weight, then please explain how the astronomical community so rapidly accepted the idea of a universe which was increasing its expansion rate. That was a discovery totally unexpected, and one greeted with a good degree of skepticism. Yet it didn't take long at all for the astronomical community to accept it as a fact. Why didn't your purported explanations cause the increased expansion rate model to be rejected outright? It was completely against the astronomical orthodoxy of the time. Can you offer a hypothesis as to why your reasons for AGW being a conspiracy worked in the case of AGW but failed in regards to a faster expanding universe?)

 

[a_unique_person]

Your second link goes to Lindzen too, should be http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=...tnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014 I think.

Not that ABC10 will look at them or respond to the difference.

I think there are several 'skeptics' who only ever look for the evidence against AGW, but never look at the evidence for.

 

[grmcdorman]

Unprecedented melt of B.C. glaciers seeps into U.S. climate change concerns

VANCOUVER - The mountains of British Columbia cradle glaciers that have scored the landscape over millenia, shaping the rugged West Coast since long before it was the West Coast.

But they're in rapid retreat, and an American state-of-the-union report on climate change has singled out the rapid melt in British Columbia and Alaska as a major climate change issue.

"Most glaciers in Alaska and British Columbia are shrinking substantially," said the U.S. National Climate Assessment, released last week to much fanfare south of the border.

"This trend is expected to continue and has implications for hydropower production, ocean circulation patterns, fisheries, and global sea level rise."

More facts to deny, yes? (Like the Extreme Ice Survey, which I believe has been mentioned before).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Hardly. A simple search on Google Scholar shows an impressive number

Maybe if you want to count all those op-eds. Searching on the last decade reveals a total of 2 papers in reasonable quality journal;s, neither of any real importance.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?st...dzen&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2014

You limited that search to climate papers, which is not Lindzen's primary field of research.

Since 2004, Lindzen has published approximately 30 papers, including 6 in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. That's not a bad rate of publication for a guy who was already 64 years old in 2004.

Richard Lindzen's research has had demonstrable impact on his field of atmospheric science. You are of course free to argue that atmospheric science is unrelated to climate science.

Atmospheric science and climate science are NOT the same thing and any real work he's done in either turned out to be a dead end decades ago.

No one is saying atmospheric science and climate science are the same thing.

You, however, are saying any real work he did in atmospheric science "turned out to be a dead end decades ago." Why should we trust your assessment over that of the National Academy of Sciences, which elected Lindzen a member in 1977?

It would be hypocritical for someone who scoffs at Lindzen's membership in the NAS to mention the NAS affiliation of the 255 members who signed the open letter on climate change and the integrity of science.

Are you at all familiar with his work? I am. The primary hypothesis he keeps going back to was discarded by the climate science community back in the 1990 because if correct it would have rendered exiting a glaciation all but impossible.

You appear to be unfamiliar with his work in atmospheric science. Dismissing the worth of Lindzen's work in his primary field of research does not enhance your credibility.

It looks as though you, lomiller, "are judging sources not by their science credentials but on how they align with your political sensibilities."

Perhaps you should have done a little more homework before saying silly things like this. As it stands one has to wonder about why you think someone who hasn't been a major contributor for decades is a relevant voice in a fast moving field.

I don't think Lindzen is a particularly relevant voice in climate science. To defend your indefensible claim that Lindzen had never published anything of worth in any field of science, you are attacking straw men.

Had you been limiting your criticism to Lindzen's recent research in climate science, your criticism might have had some merit.

 

[uke2se]

This thread is now undergoing yet another fringe-reset by ABC and his fellow deniers. We should not allow them to do this. Ignore the deniers and keep presenting climate science. The deniers are becoming less and less relevant as governments around the world are waking up to the problem.

I'm hereby making a formal request for moderators to take more firm action against posts invoking conspiracy and disrupting the thread.

 

[Trakar]

You, however, are saying any real work he did in atmospheric science "turned out to be a dead end decades ago." Why should we trust your assessment over that of the National Academy of Sciences, which elected Lindzen a member in 1977?

1977 was nearly 4 decades ago (37 years).

It would be hypocritical for someone who scoffs at Lindzen's membership in the NAS to mention the NAS affiliation of the 255 members who signed the open letter on climate change and the integrity of science.

This letter was complaining about the fraud being perpetrated by people like Lindzen!

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
(...)
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
(...)

Notably, Lindzen was not among the signatories to this letter.

 

[Trakar]

IEA: Clean energy shift will save world $71 trillion through 2050

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set...hift-will-save-world-71-trillion-through-2050

By David J. Unger, Staff writer / May 12, 2014

Transitioning to a cleaner, more-efficient energy mix will save the global economy trillions of dollars in avoided fuel costs, according to a report released Monday by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Much of the savings will come in the form of efficiency upgrades for buildings and vehicles, but deployment of more wind, solar, and other renewable technologies will also play an important role.

The challenge is that most of the financial and environmental benefits of a cleaner energy system develop over the course of decades, and don't always accrue to those who make the initial investment. National energy policies tend to be short-term and narrowly focused on specific fuels, further discouraging private investment and broad public support for wind, solar, and other new energy technologies. Meanwhile, much of the developing world is fueling growth with cheap, carbon-heavy fuels. That offsets reductions in carbon emissions made elsewhere, driving a rise in average global temperatures.
(...)
Decarbonizing most of the global energy system by 2050 would require an additional $44 trillion investment, according to the latest IEA report, up from the estimated $36 trillion in last year's assessment. Those costs are offset by $115 trillion in fuel savings, according to IEA, resulting in net savings of $71 trillion through 2050...

Anyone interested in saving 71 Trillion dollars over the next 3 and a half decades?

 

[lomiller]

You limited that search to climate papers, which is not Lindzen's primary field of research.

So he's a "great" climate scientists despite the fact it's not even his specialty?

Who cares about his credentials on some other subject, he's being brought up int the context of climate science. His credentials in THIS topic are spotty and what he has done hasn't held up.

No one is saying atmospheric science and climate science are the same thing.

Then why are we discussing it?

You, however, are saying any real work he did in atmospheric science "turned out to be a dead end decades ago."

I said nothing of the sort, you were the one who want to bring up his non-climate related work.

You appear to be unfamiliar with his work in atmospheric science. Dismissing the worth of Lindzen's work in his primary field of research does not enhance your credibility.

Much of the tinfoil hat crowd have credentials in other areas and only devolve into woo when they go outside their own field. Stressing credentials non-relevant to the discussion should be a big red flag. your suggestion that pointing out this red flag is calls credibility into question is flat out wrong.

I don't think Lindzen is a particularly relevant voice in climate science.

Then why are you attempting to defend claims that he's a "great" climate scientist who's opinion is important in the filed?

To defend your indefensible claim that Lindzen had never published anything of worth in any field of science, you are attacking straw men.

Funny you should mention straw men...

I said that Lindzen hasn't published anything of importance to climate science in decades and that the last work of any real interest to climate science was dismissed back in the 90's because it didn't fit the pale-climate data.

 

[Trakar]

Exciting new trend in Climate Science Papers.

To go along with their journal papers, many climate scientists are now, themselves, preparing and producing videos that explain their work in their own words to lay audiences!

Climate sensitivity By Dressler:
"Climate sensitivity calculations, Kummer and Dessler, GRL, 2014"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqmw46Q4LdE&noredirect=1

With increasing numbers of these researchers offering educational snapshots of their work and professors in the field of climate science putting out lecture videos, there is really little excuse to try and rely on second-hand information:

Climate Sensitivity lecture by D. Archer:
http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/openGraph/wid/0_cm4do82n

When you add the more generic collaborations being produced to explain many climate events adds to this explosion of good information that surrounds climate science.

el Nino this year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vQlsuhM8Q

Abrupt Climate Change: Implications for People and for Businesses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GKHwc42mjU

And its not just the scientists:

Hunters, Anglers, and Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEMt8Mf6NGU&noredirect=1

 

[Trakar]

Already too late to protect what was.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nserve-nature-as-is-thanks-to-climate-change/

Impossible to Conserve Nature As Is, Thanks to Climate Change

A U.S. government-backed guide for land managers says global warming requires a fundamental shift in conservation

When President Theodore Roosevelt visited the Grand Canyon in 1903, he famously admonished the attending crowd to avoid meddling with the landscape. "Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it," he said. True to Roosevelt's message, America's conservationists have since focused on maintaining the status quo, or at least restoring ecosystems to their natural state.

But due to the growing impacts of climate change, this can no longer continue, according to a new guide for land managers backed by multiple state and federal agencies.

"Addressing the growing threats brought about or accentuated by rapid climate change requires a fundamental shift in the practice of natural resource management in conservation," states the document, released yesterday by the National Wildlife Federation in partnership with the National Park Service, U.S. EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey and several other federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations.

"While managers traditionally have looked to the past for inspiration, increasingly we will be faced with future conditions that may have no historical analogs," it states.

The guide is intended to demystify climate adaptation for habitat and wildlife managers. It provides a step-by-step process evaluating how ecosystems may be vulnerable to climate change and how conservation goals might be altered for the best possible outcome.

'No longer possible' to maintain nature's status quo
But the guide's authors stress the "best possible outcome" may mean ecosystems that look very different from how they did in the past.

"It is going to be a very big shift over the coming decades," said Bruce Stein, the National Wildlife Federation's director for climate change adaptation, who helped edit the guide.

"There's going to be places where we're going to try to do our utmost to keep it the way it is," Stein said, "... but that's not going to be possible indefinitely; in fact in some places and for some things, it's not possible even now."

 

[Trakar]

Another video interview about the Antarctic Melt

Dr Mauri Pelto on Antarctic Melt Pt. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORnBABQzaHI

Pt 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlMR2fpYufk


Noted Climate scientists D. Archer also has a short (2 min.) lecture clip about these events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FwzqPZcdKY

The point being that sea level, from warming climate, isn't a slow steady process. The dynamics in even gradual slow warmings like we see in the geological records tends to be episodic. The speed of the modern climate change is unlike the slow periods of warming seen in most of the geological record. The pulses we observe in that record indicate what we may expect in an accelerated fashion.

 

[Reality Check]

Gotta love Warming observer Doc Chris Pine of New South Wales U. ....

Gotta love:
* the ignorance in that post, ABC10 !
It is the captains of ships who are in control. They are the ones to blame for any mistakes such as getting trapped in ice.
* the inability to understand what you read and post a totally irrelevant reply, ABC10!
* the implied insult of "Warming observer" ("warmer"?), ABC10! You are maybe acknowledging that fact that climate scientists observe that global warming is happening.
* what looks like an imaginary "Chris Pine", ABC10!
The expedition leader was Chris Turney: Rescuers in Antarctica have safely transferred all 52 passengers stranded on the ice-bound research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy.
* the ignorance about the purposes of The Spirit of Mawson

We are going south to:
1.gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle
2.explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
3.use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past
4.investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands
5.discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay
6.understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay
7.produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay
8.determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica
9.provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future

Yes the evidence for AGW is so strong that 97% of climate scientists state that AGW is happening. This means that there are 3% of climate scientists that are neutral or do not believe in the A part of AGW. Maybe even a few so deluded that they do not believe in the GW part!
Richard Lindzen has attacked the scientific consensus that has been established by several surveys of scientists and the scientific literature by the idiotic tactic of comparing it to the eugenics consensus (why not the Earth-centric consensus!). But he has not produced any credible work that changes the science behind AGW. He agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He agrees that we have increased CO2 and so AGW should happen. His "iris" theory that stops AGW is just wrong.
What is the net feedback from clouds?

Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining uncertainties in climate science, evidence is building that the net cloud feedback is likely positive, and unlikely to be strongly negative.

Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen

"Climate sensitivity is low": Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.

Lindzen and Choi Unraveled


Really got to love the troll-like repeat of "where is the "warming" in the last 16 years plus months" which has been answered many times - it is in the oceans.

"I think the entire AGW thing is falling apart" looks like an assertion from ignorance.
* Getting caught in ice packs blown by wind is nor evidence against AGW!
* The continued global surface temperature (with a hiatus that has been explained) remains evidence for global warming.
* the projected 200 - 1000 year glacier melt in Antarctica remains as future evidence for AGW.
* the evidence for AGW is so strong that 97% of climate scientists state that AGW is happening.