Wednesday, October 2, 2013

"They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

In a note to Climate Depot, M.I.T. climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen:
I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase. 
Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified. 
Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.
The warming stops, and global warming "certainty" goes up.

There are some honest climate scientists out there. Lindzen, it should be noted, is emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology at M.I.T.

Emeritus.

That means he's retired, and no longer depends on grants to feed his family. The warming thugs have no way to destroy him, so he can speak out without fear.


35 comments:

  1. Is that the same Lindzen who wrote

    I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 7:14 AM

      Tell us, Troi... what is the numerical value of the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, and please explain exactly what a correlation of that magnitude means.

      I look forward to your disquisition.

      Delete
    2. Uh huh. And what's wrong with that?

      Troy, if that's the best comeback you've got, you'll have to do better.

      Joey

      Delete
    3. Troy, everything in science is open to debate, including the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Once something becomes beyond debate, it is no longer science but dogma that must be accepted or rejected on faith. It seems that there are a lot of tenets of science that you want to place beyond questioning to the point that people will feel shameful for even asking questions. Obviously, you have a problem with science.

      Ben

      Delete
    4. A correlation coefficient between binary variables (smoking vs non-smoking and lung cancer vs not lung cancer) is not a very useful measure, so why do you want to know Adm Draft Dodger?

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM

      Ben, you just don't understand Settled Science. You're thinking of the regular old science. You need to keep up with the times.

      Here are some ways that Settled Science is different:

      * Your data belongs to you and you can hide it from public scrutiny.
      * Efforts should be make to pack the review boards of refereed journals with people who agree with you
      * People who disagree should be personally attacked and insinuations must be made about economic motivations
      * Political pressure must be brought against heretics (aka "deniers")
      * "Refereed journals" can include passing comments made in media interviews (cf., Himalayan Glacier Debacle)
      * Important social research must be done to determine the optimal public reaction to different terminologies: e.g., "global warming" vs "climate change".

      There are other differences, of course, but that should give you a good start.

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM

      No squirrels today, Troi. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. I absolutely understand why.

      Delete
    7. Nice try, draft dodger. The correlation coefficient (R) and the interpretation of R^2 as proportion variance explained doesn't hold for binary variables. I can see why a Big Tobacco gun for hire like Lindzen would use a misleading quantity like that, but what's in it for you?

      Read this to learn a bit more.

      Delete
  2. Saying Climate scientists rely on there assertion of global warming for grants is just plain silly. It’s a cheap conspiracy theory meant to explain away the 95% consensus of climate scientists. It’s like saying physicists rely on string theory to get funding when they know the truth is quantum gravity, or that astronomers advocate the big bang theory because it’s more lucrative than the steady state theory.

    If you really want to make some easy money as a climate scientist join the 5% who deny AGW and enjoy the patronage of the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      [Saying Climate scientists rely on there assertion of global warming for grants is just plain silly.]

      Of course climate scientists rely on AGW fear for grants.Without fear of AGW, funding for AGW research would plummet.

      Such reasoning is ubiquitous in science. You need to convince funders of the importance of your work, as a field as well as you personal work.

      Delete
    2. Dr Egnor,

      "Such reasoning is ubiquitous in science."

      Precisely!
      Somebody has to pay for and/or benefit/profit from the (any) research. The easiest way to discover the real motives behind any given effort (in this case, 'scientific') is to 'follow the money'.
      Once you have found the financial spigot ,discover that agency’s goal or agenda and it will all click together. You will begin to see who is using who for what and to what ultimate ends.
      Who funds the climate science? What environment do they seek to generate by promoting the AGW theme and how do they seek to profit or come to (more) power by it?
      These are the questions, if even considered as remote possibility, should give pause for thought.
      The money trail should be followed and made public. The world should know who the people are who are paying to have this 'science' promoted every day, everywhere. The world should understand the motivation of the motivators.

      This point you make and that KW pathetically attempts to rebuke is perhaps the most profound in this conversation.
      Follow the money.

      Delete
    3. Your “follow the money” conspiracy theory relies on the assumption that climate scientists are as greedy, self-centered, and immoral as the typical big money conservative. No wonder conservatives buy it.

      If you want to see the actual money conspiracy, ask Dr. Lindzen what his speaking fees are. I bet there’re 10-20K. I’m sure the CATO institute can help put you in touch with him.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

      Popeye, I assume that when you say "greedy, self-centered, and immoral", you are referring to hyperwealthy individuals like Terry McAuliffe, John "Cambodia" Kerry, and the Kennedy clan.

      Anyway, to your rather ignorant point: no, climate scientists are not necessarily greedy and immoral because they seek funding. But anyone who has ever written a grant proposal knows that the process is far from apolitical. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about, but your callow naiveté is touching in a grown man.

      I hope Lindzen's speaking fees are $20K, or more. Hillary Clinton's are north of $200K, and at least Lindzen knows something worth listening to.

      Delete
    5. KW,

      As usual you have everything upside down.
      What I describing is not 'conspiracy theory', it is done right out in the open. There is no secrecy, just very good PR.

      "[...]relies on the assumption that climate scientists are as greedy, self-centered, and immoral as the typical big money conservative. "
      Reality does not rely on any sort of partisan interpretation of the facts. Big money funds big PR. Big money expects to be paid back with interest. Tie colour has nothing to do with it.
      Get it?

      Delete
  3. The latest data shows that the total warming due to greenhouse gasses was quite accurate, but reveals that the oceans are a more effective heat sink than previously envisioned, thus moderating surface temperatures. Unfortunately for sea level rise the less than expected glacial melting is more than offset by the thermal expansion of the oceans.

    The beauty of science is that models are adjusted to take into account new information. I’m sure climate scientists will tweak both their models and predictions again and again. Changing ones opinion with new information is not a weakness, it’s a strength, and one the denier crowd’s method of denying observations that contradict their preexisting beliefs does not share.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      If the oceans are a more effective heat sink, why are they not also a more effective heat source, and therefore why can't we consider attributing the warming in the late 20th century to release of stored ocean heat, rather than AGW?

      When you lie and lie, your lies get more complex, and it's harder to keep your arguments straight.

      Delete
    2. The oceans are warming. If they were the source heating the atmosphere they would be cooling. If you don’t get that heat flows from warm to cold you certainly aren’t qualified to be commenting on global warming. Think before you speak.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. @KW:

      The ocean warming claimed and measured is surface warming.

      The mysterious absence of climate warming for 17 years is now attributed by AGW hysterics to deep ocean warming, which is less understood and not nearly as well documented.

      It was not accounted for in any of the climate models,which got the climate warming egregiously wrong.

      If the deep oceans can unpredictably harbor heat that your models fail to capture, why can't it just as unpredictably release it, and thereby be responsible for the late 20th century climate warming, your models having failed to capture deep ocean cooling?

      This debate is about your models, which have conclusively been proven wrong. Let's move on and leave the repudiated science behind us.



      Delete
    4. Egnor: "If the oceans are a more effective heat sink, why are they not also a more effective heat source, and therefore why can't we consider attributing the warming in the late 20th century to release of stored ocean heat, rather than AGW?"

      Hint. It's the second law of thermodynamics, stupid!

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      And you would know about that, thinking as you do that the orderliness of decks of playing cards "reduce[s] the entropy of the Universe".

      Delete
    6. Yes, admiral, I know a thing or two about that. Enough to teach it at the graduate level at a major university.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      So you say, Mr Troll.

      Delete
    8. Don't hesitate to ask me about stat mech, admiral. It's never late to learn.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Hoo, something about entropy has been bugging me. As far as I can tell, all the places we see local decreases in entropy would not have happened without gravity. Without gravity there would no galaxies, stars, planets, or complex chemistry. How is it that the nearly uniform hot gas of the big bang had lower entropy than what we see today? Is it due to the increased volume caused by the expansion of space?

      -KW

      Delete
    10. The short story, KW, is that entropy isn't synonymous with disorder as seen by a human eye. That's an oversimplification often found in general physics textbooks. Sometimes macroscopic states with visible order have lower entropy than more disordered ones.

      Systems with gravity aren't the only example of that. A uniform fluid below its critical temperature separates into two components, liquid and gas. The resulting state has visibly more structure to it and more entropy than a uniform state.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM

      Hoots, if I have any questions I think you could answer without Google, I'll get back to you.

      But I can always use the odd citation in a foreign language. Try Hungarian next time. It's more impressive than German.

      Delete
    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      By the way, that proto-"Clarke and Dawes" routine was pretty good, guys. Not ready for primetime yet, but not bad.

      This one's better, though.

      Delete
    13. If you have something to say on the subject of entropy, admiral, be my guest. Otherwise, get the fuck out.

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

      Well, look hoo got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! :-)


      Delete
  4. Let's begin by summarizing Lindzen's views on climate change:

    Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article.[60] Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."

    The word nutty refers to most of the conservative commentators on this blog.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM

      It also refers to John Holdren, Steven Chu, and Jim Hansen, among many others.

      In my view, we should all paint our roofs white and inflate on our tires.

      Delete
  5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    Off-topic, but fun: In the real world, some interesting things are happening. Rep. Steven Palazzo’s office contacted the White House to permit WWII vets to visit the WWII Memorial during the GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!

    The White House apparently refused.

    Honor flight vets just knocked over the barriers at the WWII memorial to get inside, #shutdown or no. pic.twitter.com/T4bx8kvFYj

    — Leo Shane III (@LeoShane) October 1, 2013


    Heh.

    Meanwhile, I just read the best description of the GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN I've seen:

    "AHHH THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUTTING DOWN GOD HELP US THIS IS WHAT THE BOOK OF REVELATION FORETOLD”
    --- Matt Walsh

    Fill the bathub with water while you still can.

    Now, back to regularly scheduled programming...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 11:59 AM

      I hate to beat this drum, but it's so damn good...

      Spies are defecting because of the GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!!!

      Taking the warnings about the impact of the partial government shutdown to new levels, Clapper suggested Wednesday during a Senate hearing that cash-strapped spies might be tempted to switch national loyalties.
      --- FOXNews

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyOctober 2, 2013 at 2:35 PM

      Oh my heavens. I'm sorry, Egnor. This is just too good!

      The Evil Republicans have made the National Park Service close down a park that receives no Federal funding:

      The National Park Service has ordered the closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land, even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation...

      According to Anna Eberly, managing director of the farm, NPS sent law enforcement agents to the park on Tuesday evening to remove staff and volunteers from the property.

      “You do have to wonder about the wisdom of an organization that would use staff they don’t have the money to pay to evict visitors from a park site that operates without costing them any money,” she said.


      It's entropy, man.

      Delete