Lindzen on the Decline and Politicization of Climate Science

[ThoughtEx.]

Your claim is a lie. Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer, just to start.

And connections to the oil industry are not disqualifying in any case.

I know it was months ago, but we got into it about them already. And I did connect them to big oil. Not about to do work I've already done, so feel free to dig into your post history to find the particular gem.

And yes connections to the oil industry are disqualifying.

 

[longview]

One, it's not that I attempt to discredit any scientist who does not toe the IPCC line. It's that every scientist and source Jack throws up has ties to Oil money. Do you not check the sources people present to you, do you not try and determine their credibility? Or do you just go along with anyone that confirms what you already think. And if they were not tied to big oil money, they wouldn't be discredited. But here's the thing, you can't find a climate scientist who is a skeptic that has no ties financially to big oil. You can find an astro physicist that thinks its all because of solar radiation. He's the only source Jack has ever thrown up I couldn't tie to oil. The only one. And he's so far into left field, even the deniers have no idea what he's talking about.

And two, they are more than skeptical of Lindzen's hypothesis. I couldn't find one, not one of his colleagues that have any respect for him at all.

And three, I have no interest in arguing against a source's data after I've discredited the source. That's why I look at a their credibility first.

I worked in the school of Sciences at a University for a decade, Scientist do not question where funding comes from.
Most view grants as simply a way to fund their real research, get lab equipment, and check off requirement for tenure.
Do you understand that Scientific skepticism is part of Science, and the skeptics are not questioning if CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
but rather the Climates sensitivity to the added CO2.
Since the IPCC's range of ECS is so large, 1.5 to 4.5C,
how can anyone's prediction falling within that range be considered to be in denial of anything?
Lewis-Curry at 1.62 C (within the range) Otto at 2 C and most of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Feldman did not say anything controversial, but his data is damming to the more extreme model outputs.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Part of the problem is that the behavior of CO2 and how it interacts with other atmospheric components
is complex, and not following the basic theory.
Perhaps Lindzen is right, perhaps other unknown factors are involved.
The bottom line is that the measured energy imbalance is too small for CO2 sensitivity to be as high as the models predict.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I worked in the school of Sciences at a University for a decade, Scientist do not question where funding comes from.
Most view grants as simply a way to fund their real research, get lab equipment, and check off requirement for tenure.
Do you understand that Scientific skepticism is part of Science, and the skeptics are not questioning if CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
but rather the Climates sensitivity to the added CO2.
Since the IPCC's range of ECS is so large, 1.5 to 4.5C,
how can anyone's prediction falling within that range be considered to be in denial of anything?
Lewis-Curry at 1.62 C (within the range) Otto at 2 C and most of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Feldman did not say anything controversial, but his data is damming to the more extreme model outputs.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Part of the problem is that the behavior of CO2 and how it interacts with other atmospheric components
is complex, and not following the basic theory.
Perhaps Lindzen is right, perhaps other unknown factors are involved.
The bottom line is that the measured energy imbalance is too small for CO2 sensitivity to be as high as the models predict.

Ya see, you keep trying to drag me into your strawman. Asking me if I "understand". You think you're saying anything new here? Skepticism is apart of science...

Sure it is, what's not part of science is giving credit to skeptics that aren't experts in their field in order to push a political agenda that favors fossil fuels. Most skeptics aren't climate scientists, Lindzen is one sure, but most of the time it's just a random phd that has nothing to do with the climate. Now, because I can think for myself I can see the same pattern of denial here that we saw in our fight against Tobacco. Hell, they're even using the same scientists in a lot of the cases. Ask Lindzen what he thinks of lung cancer and tobacco causing it.

So yeah, I follow the consensus. Because I understand how the scientific method works, and realize that if the consensus were intentionally misleading us it would be the biggest, and most well kept secret plan ever concocted, being perpetrated by a great many scientists in many different countries over the span of decades. And they're doing it in a time where it is nigh on impossible to get away with any secret plan.

Which is more likely, we're being duped in the most elaborate plot ever conceived, or some energy companies hired the same bunch of people that the tobacco industry did to buy them some time to eke out just a lil more profit. Hmmm.

 

[longview]

Ya see, you keep trying to drag me into your strawman. Asking me if I "understand". You think you're saying anything new here? Skepticism is apart of science...

Sure it is, what's not part of science is giving credit to skeptics that aren't experts in their field in order to push a political agenda that favors fossil fuels. Most skeptics aren't climate scientists, Lindzen is one sure, but most of the time it's just a random phd that has nothing to do with the climate. Now, because I can think for myself I can see the same pattern of denial here that we saw in our fight against Tobacco. Hell, they're even using the same scientists in a lot of the cases. Ask Lindzen what he thinks of lung cancer and tobacco causing it.

So yeah, I follow the consensus. Because I understand how the scientific method works, and realize that if the consensus were intentionally misleading us it would be the biggest, and most well kept secret plan ever concocted, being perpetrated by a great many scientists in many different countries over the span of decades. And they're doing it in a time where it is nigh on impossible to get away with any secret plan.

Which is more likely, we're being duped in the most elaborate plot ever conceived, or some energy companies hired the same bunch of people that the tobacco industry did to buy them some time to eke out just a lil more profit. Hmmm.

The problem is what is sold as the "consensus" is not what is included in the consensus.
The consensus is simply that most Scientist agree that yes it has warmed since 1880,
and that Human activity likely played a roll. moving much beyond that and the consensus falls apart.
Look at NASA's Scientific consensus page.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97
percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

This sounds convincing, but what does it really say?
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
I agree with this statement, but based on the math,
If we use AR5's imbalance number of 3.71 Wm2 for 2XCO2, then the CO2 warming is,
5.35 ln(408/280)=2.208 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .66 C.
So yes, one could even say a majority of the observed warming is from Human activity,
but that still says nothing about the IPCC's predicted amplified feedbacks.
Without the amplified feedbacks, the IPCC's predictions are inconsequential.
My point is that the consensus statement only support the portion of the warming that is based on CO2's direct greenhouse forcing.
The people trying to show a consensus never asked the real question,
of how much they thought the 2XCO2 ECS would be.

 

[polgara]

Your claim is a lie. Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer, just to start.

And connections to the oil industry are not disqualifying in any case.

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: I have not seen one example of the oil industry having any role in Svensmark Shaviv or Veizer's studies on climate science, unless the oil companies now control galactic cosmic rays, which I don't believe is the case!

I have, however, read about government-funded studies in which tree ring samples were discarded if they did not adhere to what they were expected to show; readings of ocean temperatures taken after the system was changed to record water temperatures when the water was rerouted through the engine room before taking readings; being selective about which ground-based thermometers in which locations were to be used to read air temperatures; and of course the Hockey Stick Graph which did not factor in time periods that did not meet their objectives; plus other such oddities that most non-scientific people like me just fail to grasp or understand! :mrgreen:

 

[ThoughtEx.]

The problem is what is sold as the "consensus" is not what is included in the consensus.
The consensus is simply that most Scientist agree that yes it has warmed since 1880,
and that Human activity likely played a roll. moving much beyond that and the consensus falls apart.
Look at NASA's Scientific consensus page.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This sounds convincing, but what does it really say?
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
I agree with this statement, but based on the math,
If we use AR5's imbalance number of 3.71 Wm2 for 2XCO2, then the CO2 warming is,
5.35 ln(408/280)=2.208 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .66 C.
So yes, one could even say a majority of the observed warming is from Human activity,
but that still says nothing about the IPCC's predicted amplified feedbacks.
Without the amplified feedbacks, the IPCC's predictions are inconsequential.
My point is that the consensus statement only support the portion of the warming that is based on CO2's direct greenhouse forcing.
The people trying to show a consensus never asked the real question,
of how much they thought the 2XCO2 ECS would be.

If it was that simple, or that easy to debunk, the entire world wouldn't be lumping you all together with birther's and flat-earthers. How bout this, you write up all your ideas and hypothesis into a thesis, then devise a series of experiments to test that thesis, then publish it all in a paper complete with your raw data and methodology, and then wait for 5 or 10 other scientist's to read that paper and try to replicate your findings. Then come back here with your paper, and all the other papers checking your work. And then, I will genuinely engage you in a debate over the specifics. Sound fair? Because that's how science works, and all those climate scientists telling us we need to start doing something now to avoid a 2 degree change satisfied that criteria. So forgive me if I don't take you seriously until you do as well.

 

[longview]

If it was that simple, or that easy to debunk, the entire world wouldn't be lumping you all together with birther's and flat-earthers. How bout this, you write up all your ideas and hypothesis into a thesis, then devise a series of experiments to test that thesis, then publish it all in a paper complete with your raw data and methodology, and then wait for 5 or 10 other scientist's to read that paper and try to replicate your findings. Then come back here with your paper, and all the other papers checking your work. And then, I will genuinely engage you in a debate over the specifics. Sound fair? Because that's how science works, and all those climate scientists telling us we need to start doing something now to avoid a 2 degree change satisfied that criteria. So forgive me if I don't take you seriously until you do as well.

Unnecessary, and not new art, The data is already out there that shows the CO2 forcing is much lower
than the assumptions of the models.
Also what I am saying is represented by an article written by most of the lead authors of the Science section of AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C,

The actual number would be a little lower than Otto, because they use an assumption for their 2XCO2 imbalance.

We use a value of F2x of 3.44 W m–2

The measured value is lower at 2.38 Wm-2, based on, Feldman's measurement of a .2Wm-2 change for a 22ppm change in CO2.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Even Otto's number of 2 °C, has a prerequisite, that we actually achieve 560 ppm,
I think it will be difficult for us to do that, as the price of oil will exceed it's economic value before that happens.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wow Jack, that's not like you. You really hurt my feelings there bud,

No, but seriously. The Koch's are horrible people, and they've done serious damage to the country over the years.

They are concerned citizens with the means to do what they believe is good. No different from George Soros, Tom Steyer or Bill Gates.

 

[Jack Hays]

I know it was months ago, but we got into it about them already. And I did connect them to big oil. Not about to do work I've already done, so feel free to dig into your post history to find the particular gem.

And yes connections to the oil industry are disqualifying.

Your first claim is another lie. Neither you nor anyone else has made such a connection.

Your second is just a display of political hackery.

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:agree: I have not seen one example of the oil industry having any role in Svensmark Shaviv or Veizer's studies on climate science, unless the oil companies now control galactic cosmic rays, which I don't believe is the case!

I have, however, read about government-funded studies in which tree ring samples were discarded if they did not adhere to what they were expected to show; readings of ocean temperatures taken after the system was changed to record water temperatures when the water was rerouted through the engine room before taking readings; being selective about which ground-based thermometers in which locations were to be used to read air temperatures; and of course the Hockey Stick Graph which did not factor in time periods that did not meet their objectives; plus other such oddities that most non-scientific people like me just fail to grasp or understand! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

You have broken the code.:mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

Crushing the Consensus

Posted on 07 Aug 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 21 Comments
A new article in Environmental Communication: “Beyond Counting Climate Consensus” by Warren Pearce, Reiner Grundmann, Mike Hulme, Sujatha Raman, Eleanor Hadley Kershaw & Judith Tsouvalis, is discussed in the Guardian, of all places. It is notable (among other reasons) for citing our own Ben Pile and our number one below the line fan AndthentheresPhysics, as … Continue reading →

It is notable (among other reasons) for citing our own Ben Pile and our number one below the line fan AndthentheresPhysics, as well as Tol, Corner and other familiar names. Authors include sensible sociologist Reiner Grundmann and thoughtful retired climate scientist Mike Hulme. Here’s a short summary of the Abstract (I think I’ve got the gist):

The emphasis on scientific consensus as a persuasive technique in the climate wars risks spoiling the efforts of sensible social scientists such as ourselves to influence the debate. Sooner or later the public will discover that the consensus argument was invented and promoted by a tiny bunch of mad activists (Oreskes, Lewandowsky, Cook etc.) who lied and cheated their way into the peer reviewed literature and imposed an absurd meme on gullible politicians. Someone’s got to call this bunch of mendacious charlatans to account, or it’s all up with the sociology of science. We’ve picked the filth up and flung it as far as we can. Now we’re washing our hands of it. . . . .
​

 

[Lord of Planar]

The problem is what is sold as the "consensus" is not what is included in the consensus.
The consensus is simply that most Scientist agree that yes it has warmed since 1880,
and that Human activity likely played a roll. moving much beyond that and the consensus falls apart.
Look at NASA's Scientific consensus page.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This sounds convincing, but what does it really say?
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
I agree with this statement, but based on the math,
If we use AR5's imbalance number of 3.71 Wm2 for 2XCO2, then the CO2 warming is,
5.35 ln(408/280)=2.208 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .66 C.
So yes, one could even say a majority of the observed warming is from Human activity,
but that still says nothing about the IPCC's predicted amplified feedbacks.
Without the amplified feedbacks, the IPCC's predictions are inconsequential.
My point is that the consensus statement only support the portion of the warming that is based on CO2's direct greenhouse forcing.
The people trying to show a consensus never asked the real question,
of how much they thought the 2XCO2 ECS would be.

If the 3.71 number is correct, then there is more negative feedback than positive feedback for CO2.

 

[longview]

If the 3.71 number is correct, then there is more negative feedback than positive feedback for CO2.

Since the measured satellite energy imbalance is .2 Wm-2 for a 23 ppm change in CO2,
the actual number for CO2 would need to be even lower.
I had used generic CO2 numbers from Nasa's CO2 page, the methods section in the paper shows the numbers they used.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

Between 2000 and 2011, the global CO2 concentration at the surface increased from about
369 ppm to about 392ppm, as measured by ARM-NOAA Earth Science Research Laboratory,

So .2/ln(392/369)=3.3077, 3.3077 X ln(2)=2.29 Wm-2.
And that number includes all of the greenhouse gasses.

 

[Jack Hays]

Science
[h=1]So What Happened to the Science?[/h]John Ridgway, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi It is tempting to speculate what a resurrected Mark Twain would think of the current controversy surrounding the global warming debate. Some of the warnings being…