(MIT Professor) Lindzen: “Earth is never in equilibrium” - ( the issue of climate change )

Watts Up With That? ^ | April 9 , 2010 | Anthony - Prof Lindzen

[maica]

If our planet didn’t undulate, it would die.

Renew/Recycle is essential for the earth to keep on keepin’ on.

[Publius6961]

OUCH!
That ought to smart at the Goregate kool-aid dispensary...

There is a wealth of information in this essay, and a useful summary of the hucksters and scam artists who flock like maggots at the corpse of the American taxpayer.
This one cheered me up, regardless of the fact that it has been a rational (informed) assumption for me almost my entire life :

It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive.

The most subtle weapon a criminally unscrupulous (or incompetent) so-called scientist has is the certain knowledge that his victims are indeed ignorant; abyssmally so.

The first law of computers ---
GIGO
Garbage in, Garbage out

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

The Professor actually had some good things to say about the Models ....but said their accounting for effects of clouds were poor as the science for understanding the effects of clouds was poor...

Yet the effects of clouds were very important .

I believe that represents what I heard from the talk ...see link at post #11.

I would like to have the text of what he was saying and also see the graphs he was talking to,....which were not visible.

The Q & A was very interesting...but it was somewhat painful to get there however.

[Publius6961]

Oh, I have always agreed with what Dr Lindzen has had to say, even when he was one of the science leaders in the IPCC, a voice in the wilderness.

As to models, they are a long way from being even remotely competent to project, never mind predict. They have, to date been 100% inadequate for that task.

Certainly not for the even grander task of setting the social and economic guidelines for the future of the free world.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

pinging for significant update info.

Was reading the comments at JoNova to this article:

I’m speaking on GlobalCooling Radio Saturday morning (US time)

.... and someone pointed to this website and article:

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS--

***************************EXCERPTS*******************************************

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE

ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC'S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Revised 9/30/09.

-

Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.

To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.

On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth's climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.

• 1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects.
• 2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization.
• 3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium.
• 4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model.
• 5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean.
• 6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification
• 7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior.
• 8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo.

  ********************************************************

  For detail go to the link.......

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Don’t know if the Professor would agree with the Author or Authors of the article just above..

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Back to WUWT for more reading:

First

Trust and Mistrust

We then have this:

My Thanks and Comments for Dr. Walt Meier

***********************EXCERPTS********************************

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

First, I would like to thank Dr. Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for answering the questions I had posed (and had given my own personal answers) in “Trust and Mistrust”. I found his replies to be both temperate and well-reasoned. Also, I appreciate the positive and considerate tone of most of those who commented on his reply. It is only through such a peaceful and temperate discussion that we can come to understand what the other side of the debate thinks.

*******************snip***********************

Onwards to the questions, Dr. Meier’s answers, and my comments:

Question 1. Does the earth have a preferred temperature, which is actively maintained by the climate system?

Willis says that he “believes the answer is yes”. In science “belief” doesn’t have much standing beyond initial hypotheses. Scientists need to look for evidence to support or refute any such initial beliefs. So, does the earth have a preferred temperature? Well, there are certainly some self-regulating mechanisms that can keep temperatures reasonably stable at least over a certain range of climate forcings. However, this question doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the issue of climate change and anthropogenic global warming. The relevant question is: can the earth’s temperature change over a range that could significantly impact modern human society?

My comment: Since unfortunately so little attention has been given to this important question, my idea of how it works is indeed a hypothesis. Therefore, “belief” is appropriate. However, I have provided several kinds of evidence in support of the hypothesis at the post I cited in my original answer to this question, “The Thermostat Hypothesis”.

Next, Dr. Meier says that there are “some self-regulating mechanisms that can keep temperature reasonably stable at least over a certain range of climate forcings.” Unfortunately, he does not say what the mechanisms might be, at what timescale they operate, or what range of forcings they can handle.

However, he says that they can safely be ignored in favor of seeing what the small changes are, which doesn’t make sense to me. Before we start looking at what causes the small fluctuations in temperature that we are discussing (0.6°C/century), we should investigate the existence and mechanism of large-scale processes that regulate the temperature. If we are trying to understand a change in the temperature of a house, surely one of the first questions we would want answered is “does the house have a thermostat?” The same is true of the climate.

Question 2: Regarding human effects on climate, what is the null hypothesis?

I will agree with Willis here – at one level, the null hypothesis is that any climate changes are natural and without human influence. This isn’t controversial in the climate science community; I think every scientist would agree with this. However, this null hypothesis is fairly narrow in scope. I think there is actually a more fundamental null hypothesis, which I’ll call null hypothesis 2 (NH2): are the factors that controlled earth’s climate in the past the same factors that control it today and will continue to do so into the future? In other words are the processes that have affected climate (i.e., the forcings – the sun, volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gases, etc.) in the past affecting climate today and will they continue to do so in the future? A basic premise of any science with an historical aspect (e.g., geology, evolution, etc.) is that the past is the key to the future.

My Comment: I assume that Dr. Meier has temporarily overlooked the fact that a null hypothesis is a statement rather than a question. Thus, his Null Hypothesis 2 (NH2) should be:

NH2: The factors that controlled earth’s climate in the past are the same factors that control it today and will continue to do so into the future

However, this formulation has some serious problems. First, a null hypothesis must be capable of being falsified. My null hypothesis (NH1) could be falsified easily, by a showing that measurements of the modern climate are outside the historical values.

Dr. Meier’s NH2, on the other hand,  extends into the future … how can we possibly falsify that?

Second, to determine if the factors that controlled the climate in the past are the same factors that control it now, we must know the factors that controlled climate in the past, and we must know the factors that control climate now. But that is exactly the subject being debated – what controls the climate? We don’t know the answer to that for the present, and we know even less about it for the past. So again, his NH2 is not falsifiable.

Finally, there is a more fundamental problem with NH2. The null hypothesis has to be the logical opposite of the alternate hypothesis, so that if one is true, the other must be false. My null hypothesis NH1 is that the currently observed climate variations are the result of natural variation. The opposite of my null hypothesis is the alternate hypothesis, that currently observed climate variations are the result of human-caused GHG increases.

However, what is the opposite of NH2, which states that the factors that controlled climate in the past are those that control climate today? The opposite of that is the alternate hypothesis that the factors that controlled climate in the past are not those that control climate today.

But I have never once, in this entire decades-long debate, heard anyone make the claim that some factors that affected climate in the past have stopped affecting the climate. As a result, NH2 is a straw man. It is the null hypothesis for an alternate hypothesis that no one is propounding.

Since it is not falsifiable, and since it is a straw man null hypothesis, Dr. Meier has not proposed a valid null hypothesis. As a result, his arguments that follow from that null hypothesis are not relevant.

Question 3: What observations tend to support or reject the null hypothesis?

Let me first address NH2. We have evidence that in the past the sun affected climate. And as expected we see the current climate respond to changes in solar energy. In the past we have evidence that volcanoes affected climate. And as expected we see the climate respond to volcanic eruptions (e.g., Mt. Pinatubo). And in the past we’ve seen climate change with greenhouse gases (GHGs). And as expected we are seeing indications that the climate is being affected by changing concentrations of GHGs, primarily CO2. In fact of the major climate drivers, the one changing most substantially over recent years is the greenhouse gas concentration. So what are the indications that climate is changing in response to forcing today as it has in the past? Here are a few:

1. Increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere

2. Rising temperatures at and near the surface

3. Cooling temperatures in the stratosphere (An expected effect of CO2-warming, but not other forcings)

4. Rising sea levels

5. Loss of Arctic sea ice, particularly multiyear ice

6. Loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

7. Recession of most mountain glaciers around the globe

8. Poleward expansion of plant and animal species

9. Ocean acidification (a result of some of the added CO2 being absorbed by the ocean)

It is possible that latter 8 points are completely unrelated to point 1, but I think one would be hard-pressed to say that the above argues against NH2.

My Comment: Saying “it is possible that the latter 8 points are completely unrelated to point 1″ begs the question. It is possible that they are related, but that is the question at hand that we are trying to answer. If Dr. Meier thinks that they are related, he needs to establish causation, not just say it is “possible that [they] are completely unrelated”.

Whether his points argue for or against NH2 is not relevant, since NH2  is not falsifiable, and is a null hypothesis for a position no one is taking. In addition, they are presented as “indications that climate is changing in response to forcing today as it has in the past” … but it is a mix of statements about forcings, and responses to increasing warmth. So I don’t see how that applies to NH2 in any case.

Despite those problems, let me address them, one by one, starting with one without a number:

In the past we’ve seen climate change with greenhouse gases (GHGs): This cries out for a citation, but there is none. When did we see that, who showed it, what evidence is there to support it?

1. Increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere: Yes, GHGs are increasing. However, this says nothing either way about NH2.

2. Rising temperatures at and near the surface: Yes, temperatures generally have been rising, and they have been ever since the Little Ice Age in the mid 1600’s. But again, what does this have to do with NH2?

3. Cooling temperatures in the stratosphere (An expected effect of CO2-warming, but not other forcings): I would greatly appreciate a citation to the claim that this is an expected result of GHG forcing but not other forcings. Given our general lack of understanding of the climate, it would be a very difficult claim to establish.

For one of the reasons why it would be hard to establish, here is the actual change in the stratospheric temperatures:

Figure 1. UAH and RSS satellite measurements of stratospheric temperature. DATA SOURCES UAH, RSS

Now, how on earth (or off earth and in the stratosphere) is that an “expected effect” of increasing GHGs? Since recovering from the Pinatubo eruption stratospheric temperatures have been stable … which climate model projected that outcome? What theoretical calculations showed that flat-line response?

4. Rising sea levels: Sea levels have been rising since 1900. If GHGs were driving the rise, we would expect to see an acceleration in the rate of rise corresponding to the acceleration in the rise of GHGs. However, we have seen no such acceleration in the long-term, and we see deceleration in the short-term. Here are two long-term records. Fig.2 is from Church and White and Jevrejeva:

**************************************************

Much more at the link ....

[Marine_Uncle]

Obviously we need larger numbers of highly respected scientist such as Dr. Lindzen to set the record straight and for a reluctant American press to finally realize they cannot hide this crime of the century for ever.

[Marine_Uncle]

Roger that E. Bookmarked the site for further reading as time permits. A number of scientist are starting to come out with some interesting things regarding all the falsifications and errors in bad models at best those at IPPC underlings have produced for a number of years.

[Marine_Uncle]

It could appear the only solution to this issue of lower stratospheric temperature gradients in recent times will have to be solved by Doctor Al Gore the witch doctor. Give him a bag of bones and let him squat on a rug on some ice sheet and empty the bag of bones and tell us with scientific certainty we are in a run away global warming crisis. Perhaps the outlay of the bones on the Lenin prayer rug he lies on will also predict for him if the two polar bears in the background have recently had a fresh catch of seals.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Failed to get this reply from Dr. Walt Meier onto the thread...:

NSIDC’s Walt Meier responds to Willis:

************************************************************************

April 8, 2010

I read Willis Eschenbach’s post last week on Trust and Mistrust where he posed several questions and challenged scientists to respond to the same questions. So, below is my take on these questions. There are a couple points I need to make up front. First, I’m speaking for myself only, not as a representative of the National Snow and Ice Data Center or the University of Colorado. Second, I primarily study sea ice; climate science is a big field and I’m hardly a specialist in the technical details of many climate processes. However, I will provide, as best I can, the current thinking of most scientists working in the various aspects of climate science. Except where explicitly called for, I try to provide only scientific evidence and not my beliefs or personal opinions.

Also, I use the term “climate forcing” throughout. I’m sure this is familiar to most readers, but for clarity: a climate forcing is essentially anything that changes the earth’s global radiation budget (the net amount of radiative energy coming into the earth) and thus “forces” the earth’s climate to change.

Preface Question 1: Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

Yes. However, I’m no tree-hugger. I don’t believe the environment should be preserved at all costs. I love my creature comforts and I don’t think we can or should ask people to significantly “sacrifice” for the environment. My feeling is that the environment has value and this value needs to be considered in economic and political decisions. In other words, the cost of cutting down a tree in a forest isn’t just the labor and equipment but also the intrinsic value of the tree to provide, among other things: (1) shade/scenery/inspiration for someone talking a walk in the woods, (2) a habitat for creatures living in the forest, (3) a sink for CO2, etc. And I don’t doubt at all that Willis is an environmentalist. However, whether one is an environmentalist or not doesn’t make the scientific evidence more or less valid.

Preface Question 2: What single word would you choose to describe your position on climate science?

Skeptic. This may surprise many people. But any good scientist is a skeptic. We always need to challenge accepted wisdom, we need to continually ask “does this make sense?, does it hold up?, is there another explanation?, is there a better explanation?” – not just of the work of other scientists, but also of our own work. However, a good skeptic also recognizes when there is enough evidence to place confidence in a finding. Almost all new theories have initially been looked upon skeptically by scientists of the time before being accepted – gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

Question 1. Does the earth have a preferred temperature, which is actively maintained by the climate system?

Willis says that he “believes the answer is yes”. In science “belief” doesn’t have much standing beyond initial hypotheses. Scientists need to look for evidence to support or refute any such initial beliefs. So, does the earth have a preferred temperature? Well, there are certainly some self-regulating mechanisms that can keep temperatures reasonably stable at least over a certain range of climate forcings. However, this question doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the issue of climate change and anthropogenic global warming. The relevant question is: can the earth’s temperature change over a range that could significantly impact modern human society? The evidence shows that the answer to this is yes. Over the course of its history the earth has experienced climatic regimes from the “snowball earth” to a climate where ferns grew near the North Pole. Both of those situations occurred tens or hundreds of millions of years ago; but more recently, the earth has experienced several ice age cycles, and just ~12,000 years ago, the Younger Dryas event led to significant cooling at least in parts of the Northern Hemisphere. So while the earth’s climate may prefer to remain at a certain stable state, it is clear that the earth has responded significantly to changes in climate forcings in the past.

Question 2: Regarding human effects on climate, what is the null hypothesis?

I will agree with Willis here – at one level, the null hypothesis is that any climate changes are natural and without human influence. This isn’t controversial in the climate science community; I think every scientist would agree with this. However, this null hypothesis is fairly narrow in scope. I think there is actually a more fundamental null hypothesis, which I’ll call null hypothesis 2 (NH2): are the factors that controlled earth’s climate in the past the same factors that control it today and will continue to do so into the future? In other words are the processes that have affected climate (i.e., the forcings – the sun, volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gases, etc.) in the past affecting climate today and will they continue to do so in the future? A basic premise of any science with an historical aspect (e.g., geology, evolution, etc.) is that the past is the key to the future.

Question 3: What observations tend to support or reject the null hypothesis?

Let me first address NH2. We have evidence that in the past the sun affected climate. And as expected we see the current climate respond to changes in solar energy. In the past we have evidence that volcanoes affected climate. And as expected we see the climate respond to volcanic eruptions (e.g., Mt. Pinatubo). And in the past we’ve seen climate change with greenhouse gases (GHGs). And as expected we are seeing indications that the climate is being affected by changing concentrations of GHGs, primarily CO2. In fact of the major climate drivers, the one changing most substantially over recent years is the greenhouse gas concentration. So what are the indications that climate is changing in response to forcing today as it has in the past? Here are a few:

1. Increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere

2. Rising temperatures at and near the surface

3. Cooling temperatures in the stratosphere (An expected effect of CO2-warming, but not other forcings)

4. Rising sea levels

5. Loss of Arctic sea ice, particularly multiyear ice

6. Loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

7. Recession of most mountain glaciers around the globe

8. Poleward expansion of plant and animal species

9. Ocean acidification (a result of some of the added CO2 being absorbed by the ocean)

It is possible that latter 8 points are completely unrelated to point 1, but I think one would be hard-pressed to say that the above argues against NH2.

Of course none of the above says anything about human influence, so let’s now move on to Willis’ null hypothesis, call it null hypothesis 1 (NH1). Willis notes that modern temperatures are within historical bounds before any possible human influence and therefore claims there is no “fingerprint” of human effects on climate. This seems to be a reasonable conclusion at first glance. However, because of NH2, one can’t just naively look at temperature ranges. We need to think about the changes in temperatures in light of changes in forcings because NH2 tells us we should expect the climate to respond in a similar way to forcings as it has in the past. So we need to look at what forcings are causing the temperature changes and then determine whether if humans are responsible for any of those forcings. We’re seeing increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere. We know that humans are causing an increase in atmospheric GHGs through the burning of fossil fuels and other practices (e.g., deforestation) – see Question 6 below for more detail. NH2 tells us that we should expect warming and indeed we do, though there is a lot of short-term variation in climate that can make it difficult to see the long-term trends.

So we’re left with two possibilities:

1. NH2 is no longer valid. The processes that have governed the earth’s climate throughout its history have suddenly starting working in a very different way than in the past.

Or

2. NH1 is no longer valid. Humans are indeed having an effect on climate.

Both of these things may seem difficult to believe. The question I would ask is: which is more unbelievable?

Question 4: Is the globe warming?

Willis calls this a trick question and makes the point that the question is meaningless with a time scale. He is correct of course that time scale is important. For NH2, the timescale is one in which the effects of changing forcings can been seen in the climate signals (i.e., where the “signal” of the forcings stands out against the short-term climate variations). For NH1, the relevant period is when humans began to possibly have a noticeable impact on climate. Basically we’re looking for an overall warming trend over an interval and at time-scales that one would expect to see the influence of anthropogenic GHGs.

Question 5: Are humans responsible for global warming?

Willis and I agree – the evidence indicates that the answer is yes.

Question 6: How are humans affecting the climate?

Willis mentions two things: land use and black carbon. These are indeed two ways humans are affecting climate. He mentions that our understanding of these two forcings is low. This is true. In fact the uncertainties are of the same order of as the possible effects, which make it quite difficult to tell what the ultimate impact on global climate these will have. However, Willis fails to directly mention the one forcing that we actually have good knowledge about and for which the uncertainties are much smaller (relative to the magnitude of the forcing): greenhouse gases (GHGs). This is because GHGs are, along with the sun and volcanoes, a primary component that regulates the earth’s climate on a global scale. It might be worth reviewing a few things:

1. Greenhouse gases warm the planet. This comes out of pretty basic radiative properties of the gases and has been known for well over 100 years.

2. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This is has been also been known for well over 100 years. There are other greenhouse gases, e.g., methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, but carbon dioxide is the most widespread and longest-lived in the atmosphere so it is more relevant for long-term climate change.

3. The concentration of CO2 is closely linked with temperature – CO2 and temperature rise or fall largely in concert with each other. This has been observed in ice cores from around the world with some records dating back over 800,000 years. Sometimes the CO2 rise lags the temperature rise, as seems to be the case in some of ice ages, but this simply means that CO2 didn’t initiate the rise (it is clear that solar forcing did) and was a feedback. But regardless, without CO2 you don’t get swings between ice ages and interglacial periods. To paraphrase Richard Alley, a colleague at Penn State: “the climate history of the earth makes no sense unless you consider CO2”.

4. The amount of carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) has been increasing. This has been directly observed for over 50 years now. There is essentially no doubt as to the accuracy of these measurements.

5. The increase in CO2 is due to human emissions. There are two ways we know this. First, we know this simply through accounting – we can estimate how much CO2 is being emitted by our cars, coal plants, etc. and see if matches the observed increase in the atmosphere; indeed it does (after accounting for uptake from the oceans and biomass). Second, the carbon emitted by humans has a distinct chemical signature from natural carbon and we see that it is carbon with that human signature that is increasing and not the natural carbon.

6. Given the above points and NH2, one expects the observed temperature rise is largely due to CO2 and that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause temperatures to continue to rise over the long-term. This was first discussed well over 50 years ago.

If you’re interested in more details, I would recommend the CO2 page here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm, which is a supplement to Spencer Weart’s book, “The Discovery of Global Warming”.

Of course, there are other forcings so we don’t expect an exact match between temperatures and GHGs with a completely steady temperature increase. Periods of relatively cooler temperatures, more sea ice, etc. are still part of the natural variations of the climate system that continue to occur. Such periods may last for months or years. The anthropogenic GHG forcing is in addition to the natural forcings, it doesn’t supersede them. And of course, as with any scientific endeavor, there are uncertainties. We can’t give the precise amount warming one gets from a given amount of CO2 (and other GHGs) with 100% certainty; we make the best estimate we can based on the evidence we have. And that tells us that while there are uncertainties on the effect of GHGs, it is very unlikely the effect is negligible and the global effects are much larger than those of land use changes and soot.

Question 7: How much of the post-1980 temperature change is due to humans?

Here Willis says we get into murky waters and that there is little scientific agreement. And indeed this is true when discussing the factors he’s chosen to focus on: land use and soot. This is because, as mentioned above, the magnitudes of these forcings are small and the uncertainties relatively large. But there is broad scientific agreement that human-emitted CO2 has significantly contributed to the temperature change.

Question 8: Does the evidence from the climate models show that humans are responsible for changes in the climate?

Willis answers by claiming that climate models don’t provide evidence and that evidence is observable and measurable data about the real world. To me evidence is any type of information that helps one draw conclusions about a given question. In legal trials, it is not only hard physical evidence that is admitted, but information such as the state of mind of the defendant, motive, memories of eyewitnesses, etc. Such “evidence” may not have the same veracity as hard physical evidence, such as DNA, but nonetheless it can be useful.

Regardless, let me first say that I’m a data person, so I’ve always been a bit skeptical of models myself. We certainly can’t trust them to provide information with complete confidence. It may surprise some people, but most modelers recognize this. However, note that in my response to question 6 above, I never mention models in discussing the “evidence” for the influence of human-emitted CO2 on climate. So avoiding semantic issues, let me say that climate models are useful (though far from perfect) tools to help us understand the evidence for human and other influence on climate. And as imperfect as they may, they are the best tool we have to predict the future.

Question 9: Are the models capable of projecting climate changes for 100 years?

Based on Willis’ answer to Question 1, I’m surprised at his answer here. If the earth has a preferred temperature, which is actively maintained by the climate system, then it should be quite easy to project climate 100 years into the future. In Question 1, Willis proposed the type of well-behaved system that is well-suited for modeling.

However, Willis claims that such a projection is not possible because climate must be more complex than weather. How can a more complex situation be modeled more easily and accurately than a simpler situation? Let me answer that with a couple more questions:

1. You are given the opportunity to bet on a coin flip. Heads you win a million dollars. Tails you die. You are assured that it is a completely fair and unbiased coin. Would you take the bet? I certainly wouldn’t, as much as it’d be nice to have a million dollars.

2. You are given the opportunity to bet on 10000 coin flips. If heads comes up between 4000 and 6000 times, you win a million dollars. If heads comes up less than 4000 or more than 6000 times, you die. Again, you are assured that the coin is completely fair and unbiased. Would you take this bet? I think I would.

But wait a minute? How is this possible? A single coin flip is far simpler than 10000 coin flips. The answer of course is that what is complex and very uncertain on the small scale can actually be predictable within fairly narrow uncertainty bounds at larger scales. To try to predict the outcome of a single coin flip beyond 50% uncertainty, you would need to model: the initial force of the flip, the precise air conditions (density, etc.), along with a host of other things far too complex to do reasonably because, like the weather, there are many factors and their interactions are too complex. However, none of this information is really needed for the 10000 toss case because the influence of these factors tend to cancel each other out over the 10000 tosses and you’re left with a probabilistic question that is relatively easy to model. In truth, many physical systems are nearly impossible to model on small-scales, but become predictable to acceptable levels at larger scales.

Now of course, weather and climate are different than tossing a coin. Whereas coin flips are governed largely by statistical laws, weather and climate are mostly governed by physical laws. And climate models, as I mentioned above, are far from perfect. The relevant question is whether climate can be predicted at a high enough confidence level to be useful. As mentioned in NH2, we find that climate has largely varied predictably in response to past changes in forcing. This is clearly seen in ice core records that indicate a regular response to the change in solar forcing due to changes in the earth’s orbit (i.e., Milankovitch cycles). If climate were not generally predictable, we would expect the earth’s climate to go off into completely different states with each orbital change. But that doesn’t happen – the earth’s climate responds quite regularly to these cycles. Not perfectly of course – it is a complex system – but close enough that the uncertainties are low enough for us to make reasonable predictions.

It is worth mentioning here that while the general response of climate to forcing is steady and predictable, there is evidence for sudden shifts in climate from one regime to another. This doesn’t invalidate NH2, it merely suggests that there may be thresholds in the climate system that can be crossed where the climate transitions quickly into a new equilibrium. When exactly such a transition may occur is still not well known, which adds uncertainty suggest that impacts could come sooner and be more extreme than models suggest. On the other hand, as Willis mentions there may be stabilizing mechanisms that much such transitions less likely.

Finally, Willis says that climate model results are nothing more than the beliefs and prejudices of the programmers made tangible. But if Willis stands by his answer to Question 1 that the climate stays in preferred states, it should be very easy to create a new climate model, without those biases and prejudices, and show that humans aren’t having a significant effect on climate

Question 10: Are current climate theories capable of explaining the observations?

Willis answers no, but he doesn’t answering the question he poses. He instead discusses the climate sensitivity of to CO2 forcing, i.e., 3.7 Watts per square meters leads to a temperature change between 1.5 C and 4.5 C. These numbers are simply a quantitative estimate of NH2, with an associated uncertainty range. Not being able to narrow that range certainly indicates that we still have more to learn. But it’s important to note that as computing power has increased and as our understanding of the climate has increased over the past several decades that range hasn’t shifted much. It hasn’t gone to up to 6.5-9.5 C or down to -4.5 to -0.5 C. So this is further support for NH2. While perhaps we haven’t been able to narrow things down to the exact house in our neighborhood, we’ve gained increasing confidence that the hypothesis that we’re in the right neighborhood is correct.

But getting back to the question Willis posed. Yes, current climate theories are capable of explaining the observations – if one includes GHGs. Increasing GHGs should result in increasing temperatures and that is what we’ve observed. The match isn’t perfect of course, but nor should it expected to be. In addition to anthropogenic GHG forcing, there are other natural forcings still playing a role and there may things we’re not fully accounting for. For example, Arctic sea ice is declining much faster than most models have projected. Remember, where models are wrong does not necessarily provide comfort – things could ultimately be more extreme than models project (particularly if a threshold is crossed).

Question 11: Is the science settled?

This isn’t a particularly well-posed question, for which Willis is not to blame. What “science” are we talking about? If we’re talking about the exact sensitivity of climate to CO2 (and other GHGs), exactly what will be the temperature rise be in the next 100 years, what will happen to precipitation, what will be the regional and local impacts? Then no, the science is not even close to being settled. But if the question is “is NH2 still valid?”, then yes I would say the science is settled. And as a result, we also can say the science is settled with respect to the question: “have human-emitted GHGs had a discernable effect on climate and can we expect that effect to continue in the future?”

Question 12: Is climate science a physical science?

Willis answers “sort of” and that it is a “very strange science” because he defines climate as the “average of weather over a suitably long period of time” and that “statistics is one of the most important parts of climate science”. Our description of climate does indeed rely on statistics because they are useful tools to capture the processes that are too complex to explicitly examine. This is not unlike a lot of physical sciences, from chemistry to biology to quantum physics, which employ statistical approaches to describe processes that can’t be explicitly measured. But statistics are merely a tool. The guts of climate science are the interactions between elements of the climate system (land, ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere) and their response to forcings. This isn’t really all that different from many physical sciences.

Question 13: Is the current peer-review system inadequate, and if so how can it be improved?

There is always room for improvement and Willis makes some good suggestions in this regard. Speaking only from my experience, the process works reasonably well (though not perfectly), quality papers eventually get published and bad papers that slip through the peer-review process and get published can be addressed by future papers.

Question 14: Regarding climate, what action (if any) should we take at this point?

This is of course an economic and political question, not a scientific question, though the best scientific evidence we have can and should inform the answer. So far there isn’t any scientific evidence that refutes NH2 and we conclude that the processes that influenced climate in the past are doing so today and will continue to do so in the future. From this we conclude that humans are having an impact on climate and that this impact will become more significant in the future as we continue to increase GHGs in the atmosphere. Willis answers no and claims that the risks are too low to apply the precautionary principle. The basis for his answer, in practical terms, is his conclusion that NH2 is no longer valid because while GHGs have been a primary climate forcing throughout earth’s history, they are no longer having an impact. This could of course be true, but to me there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support this idea. But then again, I’m a skeptic.

****************************************************************************

There are 489 comments to this article....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Many of the comments are in regard to varied questions about CO2....

Some Links:

Earth's CO2 absorption not as bad as expected, controversial climate change study finds

******************************EXCERPTS***********************************

November 12, 3:57 AMFt. Lauderdale Science News ExaminerAnna Sanclement

The balance between the airborne and the fraction of absorbed carbon dioxide has stayed nearly the same since 1850. Even with CO2 emissions having risen from some 2 billion tons a year to today's 35 billion tons a year, new data shows.

This data implies that the ecosystems on Earth are much more capable to absorb CO2 than was previously believed.

These results are in opposite opinion from a large amount of research that anticipated the CO2 absorbing capacity of the ecosystems and oceans to start diminishing as the carbon dioxide emissions rose.

This would lead the greenhouse gas levels to shoot up considerably. But the fact is that the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 plus/minus 1.4 percent per ten years, found Dr. Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol. This number is pretty much equal to zero.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More:

Airborne fraction of C02 has not risen in past 150 years, new research finds

*******************************EXCERPT***********************************

anuary 2, 7:27 PM Ft. Lauderdale Science News Examiner Anna Sanclement

New studies have found that most of the CO2 emitted by man does not stay in the atmosphere as previously believed. Instead, it is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans.

Some studies have suggested that this absorbing ability has been decreasing and that the airborne fraction has started to increase. Hence, with such contradicting findings, it is imperative that an accurate outlook is achieved to be able to predict climate change more efficiently.

To figure out if the airborne fraction is in fact increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol looked through and analyzed atmospheric carbon dioxide and emission data from the past 150 years. He found that there has been no increase in the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide since 1850, or even during the last five decades.

This could indeed change how scientists are assessing future climate change due to CO2, such as warming, since the phenomenons they are using to correlate them are at risk of being faulty.

These research findings have been published in Geophysical Research Letters.

[bert]

.....Earth is never exactly in equilibrium. .....

The truth in a succinct 6 word sentence. That is all you have to know.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Found the Abstract:

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

****************************************************

Wolfgang Knorr

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO₂ and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.

Citation: Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This comment leads to some deep thought....:

************************************EXCERPT from WUWT post #31 see intervening Examiner articles....**********************************

Don Shaw (23:13:52) :

Walt,
Thanks for your post. It contributes to a better understanding of the subject matter.
Based on a quick reading, one comment in particular is especially troubling to me since the Science seems weak in regards to the residence time of CO2 in the Atmosphere. I suspect the science is not settled on this subject, but I am not the expert.

Your comment:
“Second, the carbon emitted by humans has a distinct chemical signature from natural carbon and we see that it is carbon with that human signature that is increasing and not the natural carbon.”

This is totally inconsistent with a recent paper cited below indicating that the portion of man induced CO2 has remained constant:
“To figure out if the airborne fraction is in fact increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol looked through and analyzed atmospheric carbon dioxide and emission data from the past 150 years. He found that there has been no increase in the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide since 1850, or even during the last five decades.”
See

http://www.examiner.com/x-6503-Ft-Lauderdale-Science-News-Examiner~y2010m1d2-Airborne-fraction-of-C02-has-not-risen-in-past-150-years-new-research-finds

Your comments on this referenced paper would be appreciated along with reference to scientific studies that support your claim. I have seen computer studies that support your claim however they are nonsense since the programer made assumptions in the model that were not scientifically validated.

Your comments are greatly appreciated.
Again thanks for your posting.

***********************************************************

****************************************************************

MAN this is a huge POINT...ISSUE....WHATEVER*********

ANYBODY got a membership for this Publication....?

Probably need a thread starting with this...since nobody is going to get down to this depth of what is becoming a disjointed thread.....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You think that will slow down the AGW train?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Continuing....not sure but this may be Phil Jones Blog:

Bristol research does not support climate change denial

***********************EXCERPT**************************

November 10, 2009

Just wanted to put this out there. I’ve been pretty disappointed, though not entirely surprised, by some of the coverage the Wolfgang Knorr research has received.

Basically, Bristol University scientist Knorr has discovered that the proportion of CO2 being absorbed by natural ’sinks’ (i.e. the oceans and forests) has stayed roughly the same, despite the amount of carbon being emitted shooting up.

The implication is that we have more time to address climate change than some believe because more carbon has been absorbed than previously thought.

But Dr Knorr is adamant that we must still adress climate change, and favours mandatory caps on emissions. I ask him if that’s what we need to do and he says, “There is no other way”.

But I was aware this story would generate a lot of coverage suggesting the research supports climate change denial, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing. I think when the nationals get hold of this (probably tomorrow) it’ll go into overdrive.

So here is an interview in which I ask Dr Knorr specifically whether his research backs up climate sceptics. (He says no, if you can’t listen to it)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now to ....Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

11 November 2009
Wolfgang Knorr on Uncomfortable Research

*******************************EXCERPT*************************************

At the University of Bristol, Wolfgang Knorr has a new paper out in GRL that finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has increased lockstep not changed with increasing emissions, suggesting that the Earth system may have a greater capacity to take up carbon than previously thought. However, this post is not about the details of the study or its significance, which are important, but rather Professor Knorr's admirable response when pressed about whether his research gives support to the "deniers."

On radio 106.5 in Bristol Knoor was interviewed by Marin Jones who repeatedly asked about whether Knorr was concerned that his research would help the cause of the "deniers." Here is Jones' second effort to elicit a response, which I transcribed from the audio stream:

Is there any sense of trepidation at putting out research like this? People who do want to deny the reality of climate change and the reality that it is caused by human beings can jump on this as an excuse and use it to suggest doing nothing or very little.

Knorr's response is responsible and measured:

We have had a lot of research that could be interpreted that way. I believe science has to be open and fair and we should not hide any of the results. Climate critics will always find something, no matter what the results are. It's not an indication not to do anything and you can always misinterpret results. But I think that kind of misinformation dies out quickly, I don't see a problem.

Kudos to Professor Knorr.

Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 11/11/2009 08:11:00 AM

30 comments:

[patton]

That people can look at that graph, and not SEE that CO2 is a lagging indicator, floors me.