Lindzen Slipping from Ranks of "Credible" Scientists

Thu, 2011-04-14 17:52Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Lindzen Slipping from Ranks of "Credible" Scientists

Has the once-respected professor “gone emeritus”?

Richard Lindzen has long been the “skeptic” community’s scientific poster boy. In a world stuffed with deniers for hire such as S. Fred Singer and Tim Ball, who lecture on the topic of climate change regardless that they bring little or no relevant expertise to the subject, Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT and has served (many years ago) as a lead author on a chapter in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But increasingly, his trenchant denial that climate change is a concern is casting him further from the ranks of people who can be taken seriously - particularly as he shows increasing willingness to say things that are simply and demonstrably not true.

Take as an example this recent radio interview, in which Lindzen tells Australian commentator Chris Smith that his country’s effort to tackle climate change by implementing carbon tax is “a bit bizarre.”

Lindzen says a number of silly things (in more detail below), but he flat out lies about the state of polar ice in Greenland and Antarctica saying, “there is no evidence of any significant change.”

Isabella Velicogna would disagree. In her most recent Geophysical Research Letters paper on ice mass loss calibrated by the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite mission, she recorded losses on Greenland amounting to 286 giggatonnes a year between 2007–2009 on Greenland and 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009 in Antarctica. Compared to a period five years earlier, the loss was accelerating by a trend that Velicogna described as quadratic rather than linear.

Most of Lindzen’s comments in this interview amount to little more than advising children to play with matches. For example, he says that it is “bizarre” for people in Australia to try to rein in their carbon emissions because that action, “couldn’t be justified by any impact that it would have on Australia or anyone.” Lindzen doesn’t make any effort to justify this view, leaving us to speculate that he might be arguing that any action taken by Australia’s small population would be irrelevant, especially when both population and personal carbon emissions are growing quickly in the developing world.

It’s the argument you might hear from Smokey the Bear’s evil cousin, who advises not that “Only you can prevent forest fires,” but: “What the hell, some guy in China might be starting a fire right now anyway; what possible difference can it make if YOU’RE reckless?”

Lindzen is only 71 years old, a little early to “go emeritus” in the sense of forgetting entirely the necessity to check your work before you open your mouth - and to restrict yourself to topics on which you have actually done some recent research. Then again, this is a guy who once testified that it was hard to make a link between smoking and cancer.

Toward the end of the radio interview, however, Lindzen said one thing that’s hard to criticize. Asked to imagine what people will think when they look back on this time 40 years from now, he said, they “will wonder how science broke down.” They’ll wonder how, “in a period of technilogical advance that the public could be swayed by arguments that make no sense.”

On that position, he is sure to be proved correct.

Previous Comments

He sounds eminently credible to me.

When Tim Flannery, leader of Australia’s Climate Change Commission says “If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years,” then dealing with the problem by way of a tax rather than adapting to any changes does indeed seem bizarre.

As for evidence of significant change in Arctic and Antarctic Ice…I suppose it depends what you define as significant. I am told that if you lump the two poles together, the trend for ice cover over the last 30 years (which is pretty much all we have reliable records for) is slightly up. I do not find that particularly significant. Is it?
If so, significant of what?

Sorry Jack, but which clown suggested the temperatures rise is going to stop, and why did you believe it?

Again, what idiotic notion is this ‘lumping the two poles together’? Please explain your logic, and why you would do such a thing.

Jack, you clearly do not realise that NOT stopping emissions will mean an increasing temperature. There’s an associated problem with that: we don’t exactly know what to expect. We have a rough idea, but that’s it. So, Jack, what are we to adapt to?

Second, I wonder who told you that “if you lump the two poles together, the trend for ice cover over the last 30 years (which is pretty much all we have reliable records for) is slightly up”. That’s wrong. It is down. Besides that, this refers to sea ice and extent only. More relevant parameters are the amount of ice, and that’s doooooown at both ends. The mere fact that Antarctic land ice melt contributes to sea level rise should make you think. about 70% of the earth is covered by oceans, and those are rising in part because Antarctic land ice, which covers a few % of the earth’s surface, is melting.

“He sounds eminently credible to me”.

Therein lies the problem.

This statement alone renders your input into a serious discussion of the science completely null and void.

Hoisted by your own petard.

What you are saying is that since the problem is so enormous, there’s no point in trying to solve it. This is brainless.

“… she (Isabella Velicogna) recorded losses on Greenland amounting to 286 giggatonnes a year between 2007–2009 on Greenland …”

Is that a lot? The answer is no.

The amount of ice loss from Greenland is statistically very very low. Percentage wise, what is the loss, 00.007% a year or something like that?

So, Jack, as long as there’s some ice up there, there’s no significant ice loss going on.

You see, although your statement “it depends on what you mean”, this does rather mean that an idiot can just deny and defend their denial with the Humpty-dumpty defence·

“”..amounting to 286 giggatonnes a year between 2007–2009 on Greenland …”
Is that a lot? The answer is no.”

You lift it then. See what I mean about the humpty-dumpty defence? paul s goes ahead and uses it.

Obviously, Littlemore does not know about the contents of Lindzen (and R. Spencers respective ) paper(s) embargoed by Science mag-in reply to Dessler (Nov 2010), among others. There is an ongoing dispute over climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling, as empirically measured from NASA satellite measured temp response to warming along the equator - ie, where warming is expected to come first (as opposed to natural variability in the Arctic - since ice there forms at the bottom).

As far as I can tell, this ongoing interpretive debate does not support AGW alarm. At best, the results looks equivocal - at worst, AGW-fears appear to be falsified.

As for the Arctic, perhaps Littlemore does not know that the Danish Meteorological Institutes Arctic temp network for 80 degrees North does not show appreciable warming for its nearly 60 year length?

Oh well. Back to the salt mines.

Falsification is simpler than any of this. Real thermometer records don’t show any trend change in the modern era whatsoever:

http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

Nor does the global average:

http://oi49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg

GAME OVER

Your links contradict each other. The first takes a few cherry-picked sites to claim there has been little to no increase in temps, the second says that an increase has been going on for 400 years; “… normal warming that has been occurring for 400 years since the Little Ice Age…”
That statement is in itself absurd; the LIA did not end 400 years ago, it *started* about then.

Did you miss that part? :)

isn’t up to speed with how the Lindzen v Dessler debate pans out. See this for starters:

Andy Dessler Smokes Richard Lindzen

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/andy-dessler-smokes-richard-lindzen.html

and Lindzen, if a sensible scientist, should give up smoking weeds. I wonder if he gets a gratuitous issue from the tobacco folks because of his past service to them denying other science.

Now as for embargoed papers, if a paper is a crock it does not get published in top tier science journals - and why should it? You want the truth don’t you? Perhaps not judging by your spiel.

“if a paper is a crock it does not get published in top tier science journals”

Wow are you naive. The hockey stick graph is a more obvious example of a crock which was published in a top tier journal. Cheers.

as a well know scientist once remarked.

Strewth are you ignorant, or just plain obnoxious. There are many hockey stick graphs based upon very different proxies (if you don’t understand proxy then do some study at a reliable source) which come from numerous studies in various papers across a spectrum of reputable science journals. Only the denizens of We Use Wishful Thinking, Climate McFraudit, and Denial Despot still try raise this zombie argument of yours. How many times must we play whack a mole?

Continue your whacking ways.

This myth about the DMI data showing no warming in the Arctic has been exposed here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html

As usual deniers only read and cite denier websites. Why they have such a fear of actually reading science I do not know except that it will show up their lack of knowledge in the area and make themselves look stupid (as usual).

Anyone who wants to see what is actually happening in the Arctic can read all about it here where scientists discuss it in a knowledgeable and rational manner. It has been shown that the Arctic temperature is in fact rising at a rate of 0.383 degrees C per decade, more than twice the global average. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=412

//This means in the Arctic region, GISS data is relatively coarse grained, as individual grid cells above 80N may include station data interpolated out to as much as 1200km, and are likely to show the higher short term variability which is characteristic of data from individual Polar stations.//

Wow, GISS!

O.383 degrees! Holy cow, and very doubtful analysis [at that] and if the longer trend is viewed it is next to nothing anyway.
N. B. Oceanic currents dictate Arctic Sea ice and the data suggests the ice has thickened greatly in recent years.

Surface air temperature measurements are irrelevant.

Ocean currents alone dictate Arctic sea ice extent, they are but one of several factors:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Factors-Contributing-to-Decline-in-Arctic-Ice.html

The ice melts from above and below, quite simple. Data from NASA has shown that the Arctic melt season is increasing in duration as the Arctic rapidly warms:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42456

So, Edward, what do you make of the DMI data showing a LARGER warming trend than GISS?

“Anyone who wants to see what is actually happening in the Arctic can read all about it here where scientists discuss it in a knowledgeable and rational manner.”

Ian why is it that only people (scientists) who agree with you are knowledgeable and ration? Why can’t both sides have people who are thus?
Why is it that all AGW supporters degradingly refer to peope who disagree as “deniers”? Name calling is just an attempt to devalue opponents without supporting fact.

What about good, open sceintific debate? Being a realistic but skeptical person, I believe the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I believe we have had some effect on the erth’s climate but for more reasons than just CO2. I also believe the amount of effect we have and it’s consequences are vastly overexaggerated for political, ideological and finacial reasons. There are finanical/political reasons on the “denier” side too. I also believe that there a good scientist on both sides who find evidence they “want to find”.

The truth is we should encourage good, open scientific debate and promote understanding of human impact on the earth. Conservationism has some many wonderful merits that we don’t need to have chicken little type predicitions to get people on board. I believe most people would engage in envirnmoentally sound practices if they were promoted for their TRUTHFUL benefits.

See both sides of an arguement, you are just as biased as they are.

The reason they are called deniers is that they deny the science. They do not argue against the science by providing data to support their “findings”. No they just deny the results of the honest and rational scientists because their results go against the political, economic, religious or whatever beliefs of the deniers.

That is not how science is performed.

In addition, the deniers spread lies and accusations of fraud against those honest scientists. Is it any wonder that other scientists get frustrated by these techniques?

“The truth is we should encourage good, open scientific debate and promote understanding of human impact on the earth.”

Dear Fat Tim

You can’t come to a site like this one and expect good open scientific debate. They used to engage in good scientific debate for years but they are losing the alarmist battle and they know it, so no more good scientific debate any longer. Only biased alarmism based on faith allowed here now. Just look at the subject of this blog for example; Lindzen, Ooohh he’s losing his credibility he’s no good. No scientific debate around here at all. Lol!

I’d say this war is over. Cheers.

Your attempt to present 3 years of satellite data as a counter argument to Lindzen’s lack of concern for ice melt is weak. If you had provided long term data such as Dr. Alley’s Greenland ice core data for 10,000 years of temperature showing no warming for example, then I would have accepted the data as scientifically significant. However 3 years of satellite data isn’t significant at all from a scientists perspective which is how I look at things. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsV6QkAco5I/AAAAAAAABK4/3wRgD1bxTqQ/s1600-h/GISP2_10Kb.jpg

Once you fail to establish a persuasive counter argument to Linden’s ice loss view, I am left with your seemingly age-bias appeal that Lindzen is an “old fool” (why else would you mention age?) whose ideas should be dismissed. This isn’t very persuasive and it may backfire and make you look mean (not saying that you are mean, only that this article’s content gives that impression) in the view of many readers.

You see, satellite data goes back more than about three years and once the gremlins introduced by Christy and Spencer were sorted out this data showed that the troposphere was warming and the stratosphere cooling. This is exactly what one would expect with a build up of GHGs. We don’t need to know the trends over a thirty year period to understand that.

Alleys GISP data has been widely abused by “skeptics”. This BS (Bad science) from “skeptics” has been refuted here,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core1.html

and here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core2.html

“I am left with your seemingly age-bias appeal that Lindzen is an “old fool””

Ad Hominum has always been the last gasp of a lost argument.

Try studying some of the literature on this topic if you do not understand, or believe, that ice loss from Greenland and the Antarctic is an issue not quantified WRT sea level rise in IPCC FAR.

I reality there is growing evidence that demonstrates that ice loss in both areas is increasing.

Ice loss from Greenland ice sheet spreading to northwest coast

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-07.shtml

and

Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08471.html

and the position worsens each year.

Watch this for a quick heads up:

Cambridge Ideas - This Icy World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5nXSC1woLU&feature=player_embedded#at=217

and study, in particular the altitude of much of Antarctica WRT sea level in this:

Map of Antarctic bedrock elevation now available in Atlas of the Cryosphere

http://nsidc.org/data/atlas/news/bedrock_elevation.html

I could offer up more, much more but what is the point with the willfully ignorant as an audience.

There is no longer any excuse for ignorance based opinion as any such is clearly being economical with the actualite as is Lindzen with most of his assertions in that radio interview. Interviewers are not worthy if the let their interviewee get away with outright bullshit of the type Lindzen spouts here.

I tried listening to that interview but could only take it in small doses due to rising nausea.

As for Tim Flannery – he is recognising that even if we stopped excessive GHG emissions today there is already sufficient warming in the pipeline due to feedbacks from the excess that we have already added. Flannery is not indicating what you think he is.

“Lindzen says a number of silly things (in more detail below), but he flat out lies about the state of polar ice in Greenland and Antarctica saying, “there is no evidence of any significant change.”

How is this a lie, what part of this statement is a lie? The study you quote showing 246 Gt/yr ice loss in Antarctica sounds like a lot but it represents only 246 cubic km of ice, out of 30 million cubic Km of ice in Antarctica. That’s right, 246 out of 30 million. It’s nothing, there is no evidence that this is a high melt rate or low melt rate over the millennia the ice sheet has existed. Only people who believe that any ice melt is bad are impressed with 246Gt/y. The rest of us know that in nature stasis is not an option.

Lindzen is correct, this is not a significant change, it is irrelevant. The fact that it is recorded over only 5 years is irrelevant as well. Five years is not a long enough time period to make any conclusions at all, it is not a trend.

I think it is you pal who have little credibility. Cheers.

At the rate of 246 Gt/y, Antarctia will be ice free in only 122,000 years. That’s at least one whole global glaciation away.

The rate of loss is accelerating, and making ad absurdum arguments is a typical ploy used by “skeptics”, the sh1t will hit the fan a long time before the ice sheets are melted.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Basic-overview-melting-ice-around-globe.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accelerating-ice-loss-from-Antarctica-and-Greenland.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-was-it-like-the-last-time-CO2-levels-were-this-high.html

“The rate of loss is accelerating..”

So what if it is accelerating, why would you think that accelerating ice melt is abnormal? Do you think that it should melt linearly? Lol!
Once again the emotional alarmists believe that stasis is normal. Let me guess, you’re an Arts major.

And besides, you know fully well that melting glaciers is merely evidence that the climate changes, it is not eveidence that CO2 is the cause. Cheers

ignorantly prejudiced aren’t you.

Accelerating ice melt tells us that there is much more heat energy being absorbed by the earth’s systems. Ice melt of the magnitude we are now seeing is very abnormal to those that have been over recent human history and by recent I mean since humans started settlements based upon agriculture i.e. around 10KYA.

Look up Younger-Dryas, Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events which predate that period and over which the earth experienced the last big melting-freezing excursions.

Large sea level rise, which will likely come in two waves - the first as Greenland ice mass disintegrates allowing the West Antarctic Ice sheet to float of the sub-current-sealevel continental crust and further increase the rate of melt there. The second wave will have a bigger amplitude than the first, although the first will be trouble enough for all settlements near sea level i.e. most ports. This will impact any efforts to bring in relief of rations, medicine and equipment to help cope. That is if there is anywhere without troubles of its own to even think about helping out.

Another result of loss of ice mass will be tectonic activity due to a re-adjustment of crustal mass that is being relieved of the overburden of ice.

‘Once again the emotional alarmists believe that stasis is normal. Let me guess, you’re an Arts major.’

Another crass assumption on your part. You could not be further from the truth.

‘And besides, you know fully well that melting glaciers is merely evidence that the climate changes, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause.’

Do not conflate cause and effect - not the same arguments. The evidence that CO2 is causing warming comes from physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Here is an idea, have a watch of these here, and perhaps pick up a copy of the associated book - you will learn much which is badly needed it would seem:

The University of Chicago

PHSC 13400: Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/user/UChicago#g/c/FA75A0DDB89ACCD7

ignorantly prejudiced aren’t you.

Accelerating ice melt tells us that there is much more heat energy being absorbed by the earth’s systems. Ice melt of the magnitude we are now seeing is very abnormal to those that have been over recent human history and by recent I mean since humans started settlements based upon agriculture i.e. around 10KYA.

Look up Younger-Dryas, Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events which predate that period and over which the earth experienced the last big melting-freezing excursions.

Large sea level rise, which will likely come in two waves - the first as Greenland ice mass disintegrates allowing the West Antarctic Ice sheet to float of the sub-current-sealevel continental crust and further increase the rate of melt there. The second wave will have a bigger amplitude than the first, although the first will be trouble enough for all settlements near sea level i.e. most ports. This will impact any efforts to bring in relief of rations, medicine and equipment to help cope. That is if there is anywhere without troubles of its own to even think about helping out.

Another result of loss of ice mass will be tectonic activity due to a re-adjustment of crustal mass that is being relieved of the overburden of ice.

‘Once again the emotional alarmists believe that stasis is normal. Let me guess, you’re an Arts major.’

Another crass assumption on your part. You could not be further from the truth.

‘And besides, you know fully well that melting glaciers is merely evidence that the climate changes, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause.’

Do not conflate cause and effect - not the same arguments. The evidence that CO2 is causing warming comes from physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Here is an idea, have a watch of these here, and perhaps pick up a copy of the associated book - you will learn much which is badly needed it would seem:

The University of Chicago

PHSC 13400: Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/user/UChicago#g/c/FA75A0DDB89ACCD7

Klem,

Funny how “skeptics” suddenly conveniently find 5-yrs of data too short. Especially ironic when folks like Lindzen and Christy and other cherry-picka particular data set and then cherry pick as short a window as they can to identity their preconceived temperature trend.

I do agree, how about we go back a couple of thousand years? Are you familiar with the findings form Polyak et al. (2010) Klem?

“The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century,consistent with the rapidly warming climate,and became very pronounced over the last three decades.This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”

You might be interested in a new paper out by Miller et al. (2010, Quaternary Sci. Rev., same issue as the Polyak et al. paper) which finds that Arctic amplification on Quaternary time scales consistently exceeds the N. Hemisphere average by a factor of 3-4.

boots and instruments on the ground tell of an increase in continental ice melt on Greenland and Antarctica. Photographic records also show that the cryosphere (except for a few glaciers that deniers like to crow about) is in melt down.

Try this for starters:

http://doublexposure.net/coralphotos.html

You may also care to find a copy of ‘The Global Warming Papers’ and read the paper on Greenland ice.

And remember all thermometers do is record sensible heat. How many calories does it take to warm up and melt every gram of ice?

For those contrarians on this thread defending misinformation being peddled by Lindzen, and who think that we live in a world of linearity and that one can simply linearly extrapolate current loss of ice…think again.

The science and observations on this is clear, and do not support Lindzens beliefs and hypotheses (lest we forget the debacle that was Lindzen and Choi 2009). The satellite data show that the northern high latitudes are warming at almost three times the global rate. The satellite show that the rate of loss from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating, as is ice loss from glaciers and ice sheets around the globe, the loss of Arctic sea ice is accelerating too, increase in Antarctic sea ice are not statistically significant for most months, and modelling work by Manabe et al. (1992) predicted this exact situation.

Growing seasons are increasing, vegetation is spread polewards, migratory patterns are changing, the moisture content of the atmosphere is increasing as the planet warms, extreme precipitation events are on the increase, the stratosphere is cooling and the troposphere is warming…all these factors present a coherent and consistent picture.

Lindzen and Spencer are clearly in denial, and their hypotheses amount to nothing more than wishful thinking, and additionally in the case of spencer some disgraceful modelling as demonstrated by Bickmore and others. It does not help their cause when Spencer and Lindzen both seem to easily entertain conspiracy theories.

All of the myths and misinformation being perpetuated by Dunning-Krugers, contrarians and those in denial about the theory of AGW are refuted at the science web site SkeprticalScience.com.

For those contrarians on this thread defending misinformation being peddled by Lindzen, and who think that we live in a world of linearity and that one can simply linearly extrapolate current loss of ice…think again.

The science and observations on this is clear, and do not support Lindzens beliefs and hypotheses (lest we forget the debacle that was Lindzen and Choi 2009). The satellite data show that the northern high latitudes are warming at almost three times the global rate. The satellite show that the rate of loss from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating, as is ice loss from glaciers and ice sheets around the globe, the loss of Arctic sea ice is accelerating too, increase in Antarctic sea ice are not statistically significant for most months, and modelling work by Manabe et al. (1992) predicted this exact situation.

Growing seasons are increasing, vegetation is spread polewards, migratory patterns are changing, the moisture content of the atmosphere is increasing as the planet warms, extreme precipitation events are on the increase, the stratosphere is cooling and the troposphere is warming…all these factors present a coherent and consistent picture.

Lindzen and Spencer are clearly in denial, and their hypotheses amount to nothing more than wishful thinking, and additionally in the case of spencer some disgraceful modelling as demonstrated by Bickmore and others. It does not help their cause when Spencer and Lindzen both seem to easily entertain conspiracy theories.

All of the myths and misinformation being perpetuated by Dunning-Krugers, contrarians and those in denial about the theory of AGW are refuted at the science web site SkeprticalScience.com.

If I listen to Mr. Cook at skepticalscience he says that ocean cooling and slowing sea rise over the last eight years is insignificant. Mind you now that the oceans are 3 dimensional and are the largest heat sink (the first meter of ocean waters can store more heat than the entire atmosphere) on Earth. Land surface (2 dimensions) on the other hand are poor heat sinks and easily influenced by short term variations.

How do I reconcile the conflict that I’m asked by Mr. Cook to dismiss 8 years of cooling of the largest and slowest responding (3 dimensional) heat sink on the planet (see link) yet I’m supposed to buy into Mr. Littlemore’s panic that a tiny percentage of ice melt easily influenced by short term variations (wind, atmosphere, ozone, clouds, albedo etc) on a tiny 2 dimensional surface plane is significant?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=78

The science of glaciers is not well understood and new discoveries like the recent sub-glacial ice growth in Antarctica are challenging glacial theories and models. I have a link further down to the Illinois Glacier Era when the Mississippi River was 300 miles wide due to ice melt. The ice melt was so rapid that the land mass that used to exist between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba was washed away by the force of the water entering the Gulf of Mexico. My perspective of significant ice melt is clearly different from yours and Mr. Littlemore’s.

Sundance,

You are misrepresenting Cooks and Littlemores positions–fancy that. Cooks post was written in response to some fine cherry picking by an acolyte of McIntyre (Loehle). You really ought to read this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html

Pay particular attention to Figure 3 which shows 0-2000 m global oceanic heat content is steadily increasing. Murphy et al. (2009) showed that since the 0-700 m oceanic heat content has increased by about 200 x10^21 J.

also see

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

“The science of glaciers is not well understood and new discoveries like the recent sub-glacial ice growth in Antarctica are challenging glacial theories and models.”

A strawman. Im sorry, but you are clinging to wishful thinking, the recent finding that you are referring to doesnt change the fact that Antarctica is losing and ice at an accelerating rate, as well as the ice shelves which buttress that ice, especially in the vicinity of the peninsula. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts– and the science and observations are at odds with your beliefs/opinions. “Skeptics” expect us to place a whole lot of weight and faith on hypotheticals and what ifs, sorry that does not cut it in the world of science. With your example about the Mississippi is another example of an ad adsurdum argument.

What is truly sad is how a small group of people are so uncritical of the likes of Lindzen and run to his defence, even when he is so obviously and intentionally misleading people. The irony is that in their desperate attempt to try and defend Lindzens deception, the “skeptics” roll out a litany of misinformation and misguided science themselves. It would be funny if this were not such a serious issue.

I doubt very much that you will be swayed by the evidence and the science, but Im hoping that others here will be more open minded, are perhaps not Dunning-Kruger victims and will be true skeptics.

I am swayed by direct observations and not by a journalists or his minions who insist that 3 years of data is a robust indicator of long term ice melt in Greenland and then deny the possibility of short term variability in an open climate system. The data will ultimately reveal the threat level of climate change and thus far sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, which has already been revised downward twice, is looking like it will have to be revised downward again. The latest though still preliminary sub-700 meter ocean heat data is not enough to support the modelled sensitivity. This will be a key issue in Trenberth’s missing heat problem if the prelim data becomes official. I don’t know if you have established any parameters of falsification for testing the climate models but I suggest that you should instead of wasting time trying to rationalize and defending the silliness of those trying to make a big deal out of short term ice melt trends in Greenland as grounds for declaring a scientist to be too old to be relevant.

Sundance: “I am swayed by direct observations and not by a journalists or his minions who insist that 3 years of data is a robust indicator of long term ice melt in Greenland and then deny the possibility of short term variability in an open climate system. ”

A strawman– you are actually not swayed by data and science. And had you bothered to follow the links to SkepticalScience or made the effort to peruse the scientific literature, you would have determined that there are more than 3 years of data on this issue:

Most likely climate sensitivity for doubling CO2, determined from multiple lines of independent data, is near +3 K (Annan and Hargraeves, Knutti and Hegerl 2008).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-ice-mass-loss-after-the-2010-summer.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Greenland-losing-ice.html

Lindzen is becoming increasingly irrelevant because he is engaging increasingly in bad science, slandering his colleagues, entertaining conspiracy theories and speaking to matters that he is not qualified to speak to. So I suggest that you should be mad at him, not those delivering the bad news.

Sundance,

You are misrepresenting Cooks and Littlemores positions–fancy that. Cooks post was written in response to some fine cherry picking by an acolyte of McIntyre (Loehle). You really ought to read this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html

Pay particular attention to Figure 3 which shows 0-2000 m global oceanic heat content is steadily increasing. Murphy et al. (2009) showed that since the 0-700 m oceanic heat content has increased by about 200 x10^21 J.

also see

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

“The science of glaciers is not well understood and new discoveries like the recent sub-glacial ice growth in Antarctica are challenging glacial theories and models.”

A strawman. Im sorry, but you are clinging to wishful thinking, the recent finding that you are referring to doesnt change the fact that Antarctica is losing and ice at an accelerating rate, as well as the ice shelves which buttress that ice, especially in the vicinity of the peninsula. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts– and the science and observations are at odds with your beliefs/opinions. “Skeptics” expect us to place a whole lot of weight and faith on hypotheticals and what ifs, sorry that does not cut it in the world of science. With your example about the Mississippi is another example of an ad adsurdum argument.

What is truly sad is how a small group of people are so uncritical of the likes of Lindzen and run to his defence, even when he is so obviously and intentionally misleading people. The irony is that in their desperate attempt to try and defend Lindzens deception, the “skeptics” roll out a litany of misinformation and misguided science themselves. It would be funny if this were not such a serious issue.

I doubt very much that you will be swayed by the evidence and the science, but Im hoping that others here will be more open minded, are perhaps not Dunning-Kruger victims and will be true skeptics.

Sundance makes the elementary mistake of all deniers (do they know better and do it on purpose?) of thinking that the graphs showing changes in ocean heat content over time represent the whole ocean. In fact, the graphs only include data from the top 700 metres of the world’s oceans. Recent papers have shown that there is an increasing storage of heat in the deep oceans.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2009/publication-6802.pdf

I don’t find the sampling method and spatial coverage in the Purkey Johnson study to be very robust and there is a great deal of interpolation used. Even they acknowledge the need for more observations and I’m hard to please. I didn’t read the von Shuckmann paper yet and so I have no comment. Thanks though for the links but I’m not yet impressed.

I doubt you will be impressed by facts and science….period. You are going to have to do matter than hand waving to dismiss those papers.

Quite frankly, do you honestly think people care what you think about something that you are clearly not qualified to speak to?

If Lindzen were writing in a scientific paper and made a comment about something being “significant,” I would first assume that he would specify statistical significance and second, even if he was sloppy about it, would give him the benefit of the doubt. But Lindzen wasn’t speaking to a scientific audience or specifying “statistical significance” here. He was speaking to a lay audience - through a DJ not careful enough to even learn his guest’s real name - and saying that climate change is the stuff of scientific delusion. When Lindzen says “not significant” in this context, it has to be read as “doesn’t matter.” That’s just bullshit and the only excuse for that, from a guy with Lindzen’s otherwise incredibly impressive scientific credentials, is that he doesn’t care about the truth or is willingly (for whatever reasons) prepared to speak something that is diametrically opposed thereto.

Significant ice melt can be seen here:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

Which led to sea level rise like this:

http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/post-glacial_sea_level-incl-3-mm-yr-1-trend.png

Yes 10,000 years of cherry picked data compared to a paper with 3 years of data doesn’t cause my panties to bunch like other folks here. Oh no I’ve injected gender bias, am I now qualified to to be a science journalist? lol

Sundance,

Wow, desperate and cherry pick much ? Funny how you missed this refutation of nonsense by Dr. Bart Verheggen while at his place :

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/aerosol-radiative-forcing-wild-card-nipcc-vs-lindzen/

and while you are at it consider this:

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/sea-level-versus-temperature/

and past climate can yield some not so comforting news, as shown in papers discussed in recent post at SkS:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-was-it-like-the-last-time-CO2-levels-were-this-high.html

I guess that someone is now going to have to waster their time to refute Lindzens latest bout of BS. Does it ever end?

” Does it ever end?”

It has already ended, where have you been?. The public has decided that climate change is a non-issue, they demonstrated that by kicking all of the environmental lefties out of Congress last fall. Only a shrinking number of greenies and a few fringe groups are still trying to flog this dead horse. Lol! Cheers.

Pages

[x]
Fracking for natural gas

“We cannot solely rely on abundant gas to solve the climate change problem. The climate change problem requires a climate change solution. Abundant gas could be great for any number of things, but it is not going to solve the climate change problem.”

This statement was made by Haewon McJeon, the lead author on a new study published last week by Nature magazine, which concluded that...

read more