Swooning Over Matt Ridley
Climate skeptics are all tingly over Matt Ridley’s recent speech (titled “Scientific Heresy”) to the Royal Scottish Academy. The reaction from Anthony Watts and Bishop Hill reminded me of these famous fanboys.
The speech itself is worth reading and has numerous legitimate points ripe for debate, which I’ll take up in a future post. Meanwhile, I’ll ask if Ridley and climate skeptics ever wonder if they too are afflicted with “confirmation bias”?
Meanwhile, I’ll ask if Ridley and climate skeptics ever wonder if they too are afflicted with “confirmation bias”?
um, Keith (from the transcript on Bishop Hill):
We look for and welcome the evidence that fits our pet theory; we ignore or question the evidence that contradicts it. We all do this all the time. It’s not, as we often assume, something that only our opponents indulge in. I do it, you do it, it takes a superhuman effort not to do it.
Keith Kloor:
The speech itself is worth reading and has numerous legitimate points ripe for debate
It’s “skeptic” bingo:
Hockey stick!
SLR isn’t accelerating!
Methane isn’t increasing!
It was warmer before!
The fact that these long-debunked talking points are receiving a such rapturous response says more about the pathetic state of “skeptic” knowledge than anything their critics ever could.
Confirmation bias would be putting it politely.
There were a couple of exceptions, the most notable of which was this, from an actual live climate impacts specialist at the UK Met office (and Lead Author AR4 WG1; AR5 WG2):
Richard Betts (Nov 2, 2011 at 1:54 AM)
It was probably clearer with the slides, which I haven’t seen, but were you trying to say that the observed warming was much less than expected on the basis of mainstream climate science? If so, that’s not right – Sawyer 1972 estimated that the warming by the year 2000 (relative to the early 1970s) would be 0.6 degrees C, and this turned out to be only a slight overestimate. This used an early version of the climate models we use today (Manabe and Wetherald’s model), suggesting that they do have credibility when it comes to estimating global mean temperature change on long timescales (even if, admittedly, regional precipitation remains a major difficulty).
[Sawyer (1972) link provided by RB: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v239/n5366/pdf/239023a0.pdf%5D
Yup, RB nails it. Ridley has made a mistake. A big one. From that flows the linked set of assumptions of low climate sensitivity and general… optimism that pervade the rest of the lecture.
May perhaps our friend “thingsbreak” explain where and how exactly was it proved that sea level rise is actually accelerating, and that the most celebrated Hockey Stick graph was empirically accurate or methodologically correct? Hints: 1. Satellite measurements of sea level suggest no acceleration since measurements began, with small deceleration in recent years. 2. Read (I mean actually read) The Hockey Stick Illusion.
I love that KK hates Watts&Co. so much that he resorts to posts like this. Ridley gave a good talk to a non skeptical audience. “Skeptics” should absolutely be praising and passing this around
@3 Hector M.:
May perhaps our friend “thingsbreak” explain where and how exactly was it proved that sea level rise is actually accelerating
– Church, J.A., and N.J. White (2011): Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century. Surveys In Geophysics, 32, 4-5, 585-602, doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
the most celebrated Hockey Stick graph
The “hockey stick” says nothing about the attribution of present warming, or how bad future warming will be. When someone brings it up as an attempt to challenge the reality or seriousness of anthropogenic warming, it’s a dead give away that they’re either ignorant or intentionally distracting away from the science underlying those issues.
was empirically accurate or methodologically correct
Subsequent reconstructions by independent groups show the same general picture as Mann et al.’s recent work- that the modern instrumental warming exceeds peak Medieval warming. This includes “skeptic” reconstructions like Loehle 2008.
– Ljungqvist, F.C. (2010): A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, 92, 3, 339-351, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x.
– Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch (2008): Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies. E+E, 19, 1, 93-100.
– Mann, M.E., et al. (2008): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 105, 36, 13252-13257, doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105.
– Moberg, A., et al. (2005): Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617, doi:10.1038/nature03265.
The statistical problems that Ridley and other “skeptics” love to make such great hay about do not meaningfully affect the original paper’s results. Moreover, the criticisms themselves were found to be exaggerated:
– Wahl, E.R. and C.M. Ammann (2007): Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Climatic Change, 85, 33-69, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7.
– Huybers, P. (2005): Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L20705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023395.
But, again, these are tired, long-debunked canards. While “skeptics” might be cheering Ridley now, he’s done an incredible blow to them in the longer run by exposing himself fully as a crank, thus reducing the ever-dwindling list of “credible skeptics” one further.
Another Matt Ridley piece of writing, at WUWT a letter to David Mckay
Shows where this latest speech came from, imho.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/11/27697/
Rather an ironic WUWT tile now: The BEST shot 😉
The first half of the speech begins shows some cases where “heretics” have been correct and upset the scientific consensus. These points are legitimate, but are not relevant to the rest of the talk, which is, as ThingsBreak says, a recitation of “long debunked” denier talking points about global warming. The statements he makes about the facts of the case are all wrong.
Matt Ridley’s bio is very impressive. It shows that even people with great accomplishments can have blind spots.
The great physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton is a case in point.
According to their web site, the purpose of the RSA is as follows:
“In the light of new challenges and opportunities for the human race our purpose is to develop and promote new ways of thinking about human fulfilment and social progress which speaks directly to our strapline – 21st century enlightenment.”
I would be very interested in seeing the questions and discussion which followed the speech. So far there is no audio or video available on the RSA web site.
@7 Eric Adler:
he rest of the talk, which is, as ThingsBreak says, a recitation of “long debunked” denier talking points about global warming. The statements he makes about the facts of the case are all wrong.
It was a textbook Gish Gallop. That is to say that some of his claims are not themselves technically falsehoods, but the way they are excised from context and presented makes them functionally false.
The Earth was assuredly warmer in the past. This is a fact. Saying that is not a falsehood.
Saying it as though it is a legitimate challenge to the reality or serious of unchecked emissions-driven warming is flatly wrong, if not deliberate deception, however.
People like Ridley spend an awful lot of time listening to boggers like Jo Nova and Bishop Hill, but seem to have no grasp of basic Earth systems science.
And it shows. There is a total lack of coherence in Ridley’s claims. The climate changed rapidly in the past- but yet we’re also supposed to believe that climate sensitivity is very small.
He flubs basic concepts- equilibrium sensitivity is not the same thing as transient sensitivity. He makes factually wrong statements (methane isn’t increasing- uh, yes, it is) that are completely disconnected from his other claims.
Etc.
For all these efforts to point out past “heresies” that ended up being right, has anybody attempted to compare that to how many were bunk? Just what is the statistics of scientific heresy? My guess is that the sample is quite large enough to get some decent results. Maybe Tamino would take that on . . . (or Jeff Id?)
Ridley of the Global Warming Policy Foundation?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley
Ridley’s stuff is very Lomborgian in rationale. Referencing the IPCC:
Nor is there even any theoretical support for a dangerous future. The central issue is “sensitivity”:
…
Now the paragraph goes on to argue that large, net positive feedbacks, mostly from water vapour, are likely to amplify this. But whereas there is good consensus about the 1.2 C, there is absolutely no consensus about the net positive feedback, as the IPCC also admits. Water vapour forms clouds and whether clouds in practice amplify or dampen any greenhouse warming remains in doubt.
Strange that Ridley would leave out the IPCC high confidence range of 1.5 to 4.5 C and best estimate of 3 C. Like most deniers, Ridley doesn’t acknowledge that uncertainty swings both ways, and does not support any notion that there’s nothing to worry about. Deniers treat uncertainty by presuming with certainty that sensitivity is at or below the low end of the range. In my last post on another thread, I had just pointed out that Lindzen does this with aerosol forcing.
Ridley’s argument is akin to claiming that because it’s uncertain that a drunk driver will get in an accident, there’s no theoretical support for drinking and driving being dangerous.
[…] logical fallacies, and trivially true but irrelevant “facts”. It was, as I put it at Keith Kloor’s blog, “skeptic” […]
Obviously KK didn’t bother to read any of the comments over at WUWT and Bishop Hill. Amongst the obvious fawning, there were a number of us who pointed out the flaws in Ridley’s speech. They are many and obvious. I agree that he casts around and grabs any old argument without a care for its cogency. He also hasn’t the faintest idea of the history of science or the lack of demarcation between science and pseudo-science.
Other than that, it was a very powerful speech!
He simply does the same thing Al Gore does – he ruins his narrative by overstating the case to the point of ludicrousness.
I notice Rich Muller, who appears to say one thing one moment and the complete opposite the next, characterised what was in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ as either misleading, exaggerated or wrong.
But of course, some believers loved it.
The problem with Ridley’s speech is that because he included so much nonsense, AGW enthusiasts can simply dismiss the whole thing without bothering to engage (any more than they normally do) with some critical thinking that might worry the certainty of their world view. Same old, same old.
@5:
Regarding SLR, the point was not about the fact that sea level is rising (which is abundantly clear) but that it is accelerating. It accelerated in the relatively long run (from late 1800s to late 1990s, passing from about 1.5 mm/yr to about 3.1 mm/yr); but it is not at all clear that it is accelerating lately. For that reason I referred to the satellite record extending to the latest two decades.
Regarding the “debunking” of critiques to the Hockey Stick:
(a) Are the “independent” studies really independent in terms of data?
(b) Do some of them incorporate in their calibration of proxies the omitted years in which tree ring proxies decline (after 1960) while instrumental temperatures go up?
(c) The HS used 40-year averages for the Middle and Modern Ages. Has it been shown that the current or recent 40-yr averages (say 1970-2010 or periods immediately before) are higher than the various 40-year averages for years around 1000-1250? Are there significant differences in this regard among estimates of Medieval temperatures coming from the various “confirmations” of the HS, and are there also differences in their margins of uncertainty?
I suggest looking at very detailed analyses of these issues at the Climate Audit blog.
I am personally uncommitted on these details, but I reckon there are significant uncertainties, as they exist also in other subfields of climate science (e.g. feedbacks in climate sensitivity or multidecadal natural variabilities). I feel that science and scientists must be humble and careful about many of these things, due to uncertainty, ignorance, or poorly understood natural processes, and also because policy considerations may drive scientists to underplay such uncertainties for the sake of public opinion. Otherwise, confirmation biases (which we know are powerful and widespread, as remarked in this very debate) may easily arise.
Hector M –
“I feel that science and scientists must be humble….”
Humble? HUMBLE??
You have to be kidding!! There is a vast amount of moolah, kudos and glory in being seen as the messiah who calls (the loudest) for the onset of the age of catastrophe!
Humility will earn you nothing, nor will caveats, doubts or any hint of uncertainty! Doom doom doom is what we must cry and leave humility for those that have doubts!!
Confirmation biases my backside! We can see the truth plain and clear everywhere we look!!!!!!! Listen to Me Me Me!
Doom doom doom!!! 🙂
@15
And it doesn’t work the other way? Anybody who has even plausible scientific credentials who goes against the orthodoxy at the very least will have an endless list of well-paid invitations to pricey speaking engagements, starting with Heartland. They will give expert testimony at Congressional hearings. They will be frequent contributors on Fox News. Their books will sell like wildfire. All they need is a hard science PhD. in front of their name and to claim that it is all a government conspiracy. The rest will fall in their lap. Their merits of their arguments will be mostly irrelevant.
I wrote a series of posts critical of Ridley at Skeptical Science earlier this year. His recent lecture does indeed recycle many of the long debunked skeptical talking points. Here’s a link to my debunking of a similar Gish Gallop that he indulged in in a discussion with David MacKay.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle2.html
I devoted other posts to criticism of his book <i>The Rational Optimist</i> and pointed out that his blind spot with climate science has parallels with his disastrous career as a banker, ie, putting on rose-colored spectacle, failing to see a looming catastrophe and then blaming big government for his own mistakes.
All correct, Dean, except for:
All they need is a hard science PhD.
That is marginally desired but not at all required. Bastardi got his Fox News gig for being a blowhard contrarian, but has no such PhD. I’m not even sure Anthony Watts has a college degree at all – not in hard sciences at least. Now education isn’t everything (Lindzen and Curry say nonsensical things), but in this case their lack of credentials (exceeded only by lack of objectivity) shows.
Support the consensus and you get lost in the crowd at best, at worst, receive death threats (if you speak out publicly). Be a denier and you are Galileo.
@14 Hector M:
Regarding SLR, the point was not about the fact that sea level is rising (which is abundantly clear) but that it is accelerating. It accelerated in the relatively long run (from late 1800s to late 1990s, passing from about 1.5 mm/yr to about 3.1 mm/yr); but it is not at all clear that it is accelerating lately.
Nothing is at clear about anything when people insist on trying to misrepresent interannual variability as refuting longer term trends. SLR is not only not “decelerating”, it is accelerating over climatically-relevant timescales.
(a) Are the “independent” studies really independent in terms of data?
Ridley’s claims are made based on the alleged problems with the Mann et al. stats, not questions of independent data. The same goes for your other questions- they are not claims being made by Ridley.
I reckon there are significant uncertainties, as they exist also in other subfields of climate science (e.g. feedbacks in climate sensitivity or multidecadal natural variabilities). I feel that science and scientists must be humble and careful about many of these things, due to uncertainty, ignorance, or poorly understood natural processes, and also because policy considerations may drive scientists to underplay such uncertainties for the sake of public opinion. Otherwise, confirmation biases (which we know are powerful and widespread, as remarked in this very debate) may easily arise.
It’s wonderful that “skeptics” like Ridley don’t have to be humble or worry about ignorance, isn’t it? Otherwise, they might take a step back and wonder whether their claims for both high climatic variability in the past and low sensitivity don’t make them look like abject (though self-assured!) morons.
Does climate science have all the answers to everything? Of course not. If it did, it wouldn’t be an interesting field. But this (i.e. Ridley) is the best “skeptics” can offer in terms of rebuttal to the proposition that we are driving a climatic change that will have significant consequences absent emissions stabilization? It’s a joke!
Dean @ 16
Of course it works the other way.
But I doubt you see an equivalence – otherwise we’d agree.
Sure, my position encourages me to ridicule the doomsters (of which there are plenty) But believe me, I’m all too aware of the cranky right wing contrarians. Especially in the US (Moncton is enough for us in the UK)
Still, there is an asymmetry – you guys only see deniers so you never need to engage with anybody even vaguely sceptical – you have too much certainty in an uncertain subject.
Anteros
Still, there is an asymmetry ““ you guys only see deniers so you never need to engage with anybody even vaguely sceptical ““ you have too much certainty in an uncertain subject.
Given what you were saying elsewhere, I take it you mean ‘sceptical of the ca 3C estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial levels of CO2’? Yes?
So your position is:
– I ridicule doomsters
– I know nothing about CS except that it’s lower than the biased scientists claim
– I ridicule ‘cranky right-wing contrarians’
Is that about right?
BBD @ 20
Close, but no cigar.
I don’t ridicule cranky right-wing contrarians, at least not as a rule – they aren’t the people calling me a denier for having some doubts about CAGW. I merely acknowledge that they exist. Perhaps you also acknowledge the existence of lunatic eco warriors who have not the faintest interest in climatology but basically hate humanity.
As a matter of fact I am indeed sceptical of the 3C estimate of CS, for reasons I have patiently explained.
But of course I am sceptical of a number of other aspects of the ‘this is definitely a major problem’ narrative.
It is simple – I disagree with you.
Yet still you want to get out that ‘denier’ meme to somehow bolster your sense of the certainty of your view.
I can’t speak for cranks. ideologues, and habitual contrarians, but if you don’t want a discussion with anybody who sees the world in a very slightly different way to you, easy. Just call them a denier. It’s cowardly, but it works.
Anteros @ 21
As a matter of fact I am indeed sceptical of the 3C estimate of CS, for reasons I have patiently explained.
No, you have talked a lot but no substantive explanation was forthcoming.
You are now starting to play the victim. Please remember, the reason you are getting questioned is because you are making a bold claim (above) without backing it up in any meaningful way.
There are a number of terms for this. The politest is ‘hand-waving’.
if you don’t want a discussion with anybody who sees the world in a very slightly different way to you, easy. Just call them a denier. It’s cowardly, but it works.
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that while you are welcome to disagree with anyone, anywhere, on occasion you will be required to provide solid grounds. You have not done so, yet repeatedly demand that you are taken seriously. This will not happen and now you are starting to whine.
This is unlikely to end well.
I am sorry you don’t think reasoning from the social sciences is substantive.
If you have a quick read around the history of Milikan’s oil drop experiment and then ask yourself how vast are the error bars involved in the IPPC consensus, you might (or might not) see why I think there are good reasons to suppose the estimate of CS will fall over time.
If you don’t, we disagree – and you might think my offer of a wager that AR6 will have a lower number foolish. The offer simply expresses my belief. It is made with goodwill.
You are wrong to say I am making a bold claim. The IPCC error bars go down to 1.5C – that would be a bold claim. If you had read just a touch more carefully, you would be aware that all I have suggested is that the estimate will fall.
It is not whining to point out that if you merely disagree with someone, or even whether their arguments have much merit, and you then call them a denier, you are being a coward. Why can you not say ‘I do not agree with your argument’. What is there to be scared about?
@18:
1. About SLR, timescales are of course important. One may choose a specific period (say 1870-2006) and find that SLR is accelerating, albeit the absolute rise is small; or another (e.g. since the top of the last glacial age) and find it has been rather stable or decelerating in recent centuries, albeit the overall rise has been great. However, the remark in my comment was about RECENT deceleration or stability as measured by satellites.
On the matter of the independence of sources, of course my remarkwas not derived from Ridley’s talk. As I thought it was obvious, my questions were not limited to what Ridley said, but to more general statements made in the comments. Ridley is a science journalist and writer, with his own opinions and views. I just remarked on uncertainties, and in this matter I specifically mentioned discussions in Climate Audit about the apparent lack of independence of proxies in the various paleoreconstructions, involving (a) the re-use of the same debatable data (rings in certain unreliable trees, sediments in certain unreliably disturbed lakes, and so on); and (b) the same or similar statistical algorithms (some of which systematically select series with a hockey stick shape, even if you feed them with a large number of series of random numbers). All this may have reasonable explanations, of course. It is just me, who in my ignorance have not yet found the explanations reasonable enough.
Keith
I introduced Matt’s talk without comment. I subseqently told a commenter that it was well received and agreed with the criticism made by another. But you say I’m fawning over it?
Things break
You say that Loehle 2008 has the modern period warmer than medieval. Not in my copy of Loehle 2008 it doesn’t.
I don’t think Ljungqvist 2010 makes your case for you either.
Wahl and Ammann (and therefore the Hockey Stick) fails its verification statistics. For the avoidance of doubt, it fails the verification R^2 and it fails the RE (unless you want to support Wahl and Ammann’s “Monte Carlo” benchmaking against non-random data?)
BH
The biggest problem for me is the way MR gets the observed vs projected rate of warming wrong (see #3).
That and the fact that nobody bar Richard Betts noticed and nobody responded to RB.
Anteros
We’ve been through all this and it’s starting to get tedious.
BH
Good to see you here though. I’ve been wanting to talk you you for a long time.
BBD (26)
“…the fact that nobody bar Richard Betts noticed and nobody responded to RB.”
That’s what happens when people put their fingers in their ears and sing “lah, lah,lah.”
KK
Yes. Makes them look silly, too 😉
Loehle’s reported reconstruction doesn’t include much of the 20th century. Perhaps we can conclude he’s trying to hide the incline. Let’s fill that in for him and E&E, and compare to Ljungqvist, Mann, and Moberg.
http://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=394
Here’s another mainstream projection that the confirmation bias victims might ignore.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-hit-a-home-run.html
@32 NewYokJ.
Note the unspoken assumption in the referenced paper. “There is no such thing as natural decadal climate change”.
The mean under natural forcings doesn’t move from the zero mark. So the paper is accurate provided that you don’t believe in any form of natural climate change.
What a surprise that something that implicitly assumes that natural change doesn’t exist should find that change in un-natural.
To add.
KK. “Meanwhile, I’ll ask if Ridley and climate skeptics ever wonder if they too are afflicted with “confirmation bias”?
Speaking personally, all the time. It was one of the things I brought up some time ago when I first came here. It’s exactly why I read links others place to sites like SkS and RC. Although I have some doubt that those “on the other side” do the same.
“”¦the fact that nobody bar Richard Betts noticed and nobody responded to RB.”
That’s what happens when people put their fingers in their ears and sing “lah, lah,lah.”
BBD & KK: Richard Betts threw up two bare, unclickable links at Bishop Hill without any explanation.
Are you guys new to online debate? Do you seriously expect people to copy, paste, link, then read through and try to figure out how the text fits with Betts’s one-line claim, then say, OMG, we’ve got it all wrong and now we’ve been set straight?
Of course, everyone ignored that RB’s comment. Of course, it means nothing that they did. Yet you are both doing a victory dance on that basis.
I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not even a senior layman in these debates. It’s hard for me to assess conflicting claims, but I have to say that by the bluster and snark I find in comments like the above reinforces my impression that the orthodox may have a case but they can’t drive it home.
Ridley attacks the IPCC for citing (for example) Agassiz, Buys Ballot, Charney, Hawking, Imbrie, Kuhn, Lorenz, Milankovitch, Newton & Popper after basing much of his argument on bloggers ““ shameless.
My mistake. The link I was looking at was from Philip @ Nov 2, 2011 at 5:05 AM in reference to Richard Betts @ Nov 2, 2011 at 5:05 AM.
If Bishop Hill has a way to link to specific comments I don’t see it.
John B: Note the unspoken assumption…
“Unspoken”…looks like we’re venturing into a strawman factory while seeing a red herring. The Summary discusses solar activity, which has a decadal component to it. Solar activity has also been trending downward since 1981, as have indexes like ENSO and PDO. But your comment is a red herring to Ridley’s claim that climate predictions have been wrong, which doesn’t appear to be based on any honest argument. Note also how Ridley wildly mischaracterizes Hansen’s 1988 projection. His speech gives the impression that he’s just making things up on the fly, or out of vague recollection of what he read on some contrarian blog.
If Ridley wants to convert thinking people to the notion that scientific heretics are to be trusted as much or above the consensus, and climate skeptics are Galileos fighting the “alarmist” establishment, he might want to start by cleaning up his material substantially. He’s basically making “heretics” look bad, but he’s not alone in doing that.
Re #5 “I love that KK hates Watts&Co”
Its part of the soap opera.
NewYorkJ. How about learning to read?
Ridley has nothing to do with my comment. I was speaking very plainly about the paper in your link.
“Note the unspoken assumption in the referenced paper.”
The grey area, which is expected change under purely natural forcings is centred on the zero, it is flat. The paper assumes that under purely natural forcings the climate won’t change on a decadal scale.
Jeez. You clip my comment, misquoting me and then accuse me of strawmanning and red herrings?
BBD
When you say nobody responded to Richard Betts did you miss Mike Jackson’s comment?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html?currentPage=4#comments
My impression is that Richard has misunderstood Matt’s point.
Bishop Hill @ 41
My impression is that Richard has misunderstood Matt’s point.
Matt Ridley is apparently conflating transient climate response with equilibrium climate sensitivity.
This is compounded the fact that observations are slightly lower than the projections (eg the multi-model mean referenced in AR4)
The likely causes are uncertainties over ocean heat uptake (Hansen & Sato 2011) and the temporary cooling effect from sulphate aerosols (Vernier et al. 2011).
My impression is that Matt is mistaken.
——————————-
Hansen & Sato (2011) Earth’s energy imbalance and implications:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/…/20110826_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
Vernier et al. (2011)
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L12807, 8 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL047563
Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047563.shtml
Keith – if you are there at the moment – I’ve got a comment stuck in moderation (2 links) – could you do the honours?
Thanks 😉
@42: “Matt Ridley is apparently conflating transient climate response with equilibrium climate sensitivity.”
Indeed, climate sensitivity is expressed in terms of the equilibrium temperature corresponding to a given level of CO2 concentrations. This means that an increase of CO2 this year does not automatically translate into higher temperature this year. But I have not seen as yet an estimate of the time it takes for an increase in CO2 to be expressed in global temperature. Is it 5 years? 10? 30? Is it perhaps the case that the average CO2 of some multi-year period has to be compared to the average temperature of a multi-year period some time ahead of the CO2 rise? May somebody please clarify what climate science says about this matter? What assumptions are made in this respect in climate models?
Kevin Trenberth has written that one decade of no warming is not enough. For some reason, he says 17 years of no warming trend would be needed to falsify model projections (the trend has been nearly flat already for the period 1995-2011, a total of 16 years), but this must be a result of the assumption that one decade against the previous decade would be needed, and 17 years of flat temperatures is about the minimum necessary for the second decade to show no or very little warming relative to the first; but I do not know really whether this is conventional, or a result of physical laws fixing the time required for reaching the “equilibrium” temperature.
Besides, the very notion of an “equilibrium” temperature alludes to a theoretical representation, not observable in reality but present only in models, as the purely theoretical market equilibrium of neoclassical economic theory: it presupposes a climate “at rest” with one equilibrium temperature, then undergoing one shot of increase in CO2, and then, some time later, reaching a new stable average temperature. It is expressed, in fact, not in dynamic terms but as a comparative statics comparison.
But things are not proceeding this way: CO2 increases every year, has been for many decades now, and temperatures agreed with their own gradual rise from about 1970 until about 2000, then stalled up to now. All perturbed by a myriad other factors, including multidecadal and longer-period oscillations.
BBD
Can you point me to the bit where he is doing this?
JohnB (#40),
Since the topic is about Ridley’s arguments, which includes claiming climate predictions are wrong, one that the paper I cited is evidence against, then you are indeed putting forth a red herring, and a false one too. The paper makes no such assumption:
The paper assumes that under purely natural forcings the climate won’t change on a decadal scale.
I suggest you read it, starting with the Summary.
Bishop Hill @ 45
In the .pdf of the speech, go to the slide “So we are on track for 1.2C”. (Where did this image actually come from?)
First, and most importantly, MR’s assumption that there are no net positive feedbacks is simply wrong. I don’t have time to do this justice this afternoon.
Next, the statement that GAT has risen 0.6C since the pre-industrial period (1750?) is incorrect. GAT has risen by 0.76C 1850 – 2005 (AR4).
The slide itself depicts projected rise in temperature as logarithmic. But it is the increase in forcing that is logarithmic.
The temperature response is lagged by thermal inertia (OHC increases slowly and after an initial lag begins to increase atmospheric temperature). This is where MR confuses transient climate response with equilibrium sensitivity. That’s why his curves look nothing at all like standard projections which suggest a rise of ~0.2C/decade for the next two decades (AR4 – note caveats about aerosols). Thereafter the slope of the curve steepens (unless CO2e is stabilised/reduced).
I reiterate: MR is mistaken. His central claim is that we are on track for a no-feedbacks climate response of 1.2C. This is not a trivial error.
——————————
PDF of Ridley’s speech here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
#47,
Deary me. Let’s see…
He didn’t say there were no net positive feedbacks, he said that there was no consensus that the net result of all the feedbacks was positive.
Temperature rise since pre-industrial times is poorly known, because the temperature in pre-industrial times is poorly known. It depends on which reconstruction you look at – I wouldn’t make a big deal about small differences.
The temperature is considered to be a logarithmic function of CO2 concentration, which is why they keep quoting sensitivity in degrees C for a doubling.
Any lags in temperature rise are not due to anything so simple as thermal inertia. Anybody who has gone swimming in the seas around northern Europe knows that swimming in summer is a very different affair to swimming in winter – the temperature of the surface waters can change by up to ten degrees in a matter of months. Longer term lags (if they exist) are not a simple matter of inertia, it’s a more complicated affair of convection and transport between different layers.
The current long-term rate of rise is indeed in the neighbourhood of 1 C/2xCO2, although the data is noisy enough that it might not mean very much. The models predict that will accelerate in future, but it has not done so yet. The fact that it has not done so yet doesn’t mean it won’t or that the models are wrong, but it is a claim that requires more than the usual confidence in the models’ validity. There is no consensus in support of that.
NIV @ 48
Deary me. Let’s see”¦
He didn’t say there were no net positive feedbacks, he said that there was no consensus that the net result of all the feedbacks was positive.
Ridley:
“So we are on track for 1.2C”
I have house guests this weekend, and I don’t have the time to waste on this.
Over to anyone else who can be bothered.
BBD
I think the reason his curves look nothing like the IPCC ones is that they are plotting different things on the x-axis! I’m still getting my head round the rest and will have to stop to go to the pub soon.
Andy S (17) had a comment that got inadvertently stuck in moderation yesterday.
Bishop Hill
On re-reading, # 47 sounds far more ranty than intended. Apologies.
The core of Ridley’s argument is his figure “So we are on track for 1.2â—¦C. We are on the blue line, not the red line”.
Anyone interested, please look at page 8 of the (small) .pdf of the speech:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
Where did this graph come from?
BBD
Isn’t the upward curve on the IPCC model outputs a function of net positive feedbacks rather than a delay in atmospheric warming due to the oceans absorbing heat?
BH @ 54
I think what would be most useful is identifying the source for the figure MR is using. Further discussion will be more productive once that is done. Can you ask MR?
That said, I believe the AOGCMs do model ocean thermal inertia, so they attempt to represent this as well as fast feedbacks (positive and negative).
But let’s find out about where that graph came from.
If people would only read Weart’s excellent history of CO2.
Ridley says, and I quote:
“Many scientific truths began as heresies and fought long battles for acceptance against entrenched establishment wisdom that now appears irrational: the germ theory, continental drift, the use of antibiotics to treat stomach cancer, low-carbohydrate diets, even the idea that crop circles are man-made. Many environmentalists think the scientific conventional wisdom is right about climate change, and explicitly demand obedience to the consensus or even argue that dissent is illegitimate, but at the same time many of the same people once argued that scientific conventional wisdom is wrong about the safety of genetically modified food and that dissent is legitimate.”
That concept that high CO2 levels could be dangerous was initially a heresy, and treated with much skepticism from scientists. That’s a fact. It took many years for the idea to be accepted, and the work of a few scientists to put flesh on the bones of the initial research that was counter to the orthodoxy that CO2 would only produce “Luke Warming”. The so called sckeptics of today are still embracing the previous orthodoxy. Yet the stance put forward by Ridley is for some reason the accepted one.
@thingsthatbreak
“The Earth was assuredly warmer in the past. This is a fact. Saying that is not a falsehood.”
It was, it’s the rate of change that is the big problem. We, and most other species, are adapted to things as they are now. The earth itself doesn’t care, it’s just a pile of rocks and other inanimate objects.
JohnB @ 34,
It is untrue that Hansen assumes that there is no such thing as natural climate change. Hansen did work on modeling the ice ages. The rate of warming today is unprecedented in modern times. The actual long term trend due to the driver of the ice age, Milankovitch cycles is negative. The rate of this natural driver is negligible compared to the rate due to anthropogenic emissions.
It is known that solar intensity was the source of warming in the early part of the 20th century. This warming trend stopped around 1950.
Can you name a significant natural long term forcing factor that is significant warming factor today?
Bishop Hill
Has Matt RIdley come back to you with the source for the graph entitled “So we are on track for 1.2â—¦C. We are on the blue line, not the red line”?
Since he bases his argument on this claim, it is essential to investigate it, starting with its origin.
Others, please look at page 7 of the (small) .pdf of the speech:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
Does anyone else recognise this figure?
@ BBD,
On WUWT’s oosted version of the Ridley speech, there are a slightly different set of visuals. I think the figure you are looking at is sourced as “Warren Meyer, Climate-Skeptic.com”.
He seems to be proud of a video he made, which is currently rehighlighted on his homepage. A quick fast-forward indicates that it is a greatest hits of debunked skeptic myths. Station siting, CO2 lags, blah blah. But it looks like he is the source.
Eric @58 says:
“It is known that solar intensity was the source of warming in the early part of the 20th century. This warming trend stopped around 1950.”
The “solar modern maximum” did not end until the 90’s, not the 50’s. Solar influences were very strong through the late 90’s. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum
Solar intensity measures have turned down over the last decade or so, and indicators of warming, such as air and oceanic temperature and oceanic thermal expansion have followed.
Ridley details some of the socially damaging effects of AGW theory, such as raising electricity rates, killing raptors, raising crop prices causing starvation, and scaring schoolchildren (my addition). Because of these effects of AGW theory it should be compared it to the Salem witchcraft accusations rather than the less pernicious examples of pseudoscience covered by Ridley such as homeopathy, astrology, and phlogiston.
RustNeverSleeps
Thanks very much. Not sure why BH won’t discuss this. Let me check out the link.
It matters because as we see, Ridley bases his entire argument on a no-feedbacks 1.2C per doubling outcome. And we both know that’s wrong.
Now it’s simply a matter of pointing to the errors in the source and we’re done.
Re Warren Meyer:
Ahh. A light begins to dawn 😉
See here:
http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/profile/WarrenMeyer
More later when I have time.
BBD #63 says:
“Not sure why BH won’t discuss this.”
My speculation is because BH, like Matt Ridley and a lot of others realizes that for multiple scientific reasons the AGW argument is finished and arguing with a “dead-ender” believer over the extent of feedback effects is a waste of his time. He’s probably rather take his dog for a walk.
Fred
My speculation is because BH, like Matt Ridley and a lot of others realizes that for multiple scientific reasons the AGW argument is finished and arguing with a “dead-ender” believer over the extent of feedback effects is a waste of his time.
These would be the multiple scientific reasons derived from confused and misleading graphs such as the one under discussion?
Or perhaps you are talking nonsense?
Well actually I’ve draft-proofed a window and pruned the apple trees and entertained the children.
Or should that be draught-proofed?
Bishop Hill
Glad to hear you’ve been keeping busy. But back to the matter at hand.
Warren Meyer has a problem. From his blog, emphasis added:
Many of you know that I consider questions around positive feedback in the climate system to be the key issue in global warming, the one that separates a nuisance from a catastrophe. Is the Earth’s climate similar to most other complex, long-term stable natural systems in that it is dominated by negative feedback effects that tend to damp perturbations? Or is the Earth’s climate an exception to most other physical processes, is it in fact dominated by positive feedback effects that, like the sudden acceleration in grandma’s car, apparently rockets the car forward into the house with only the lightest tap of the accelerator?
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/tag/positive-feedback
So, how do we explain extremes of climate variability such as glacial terminations? If the climate system is “similar to most other complex, long-term stable natural systems in that it is dominated by negative feedback effects that tend to damp perturbations” then how do we explain interglacials? Come to that, how do we explain any climate variability at all?
Could the truth be rather closer to the analogy Meyer provides? Might that explain how relatively weak Milankovitch forcing ultimately overcomes the dominant and strongly positive ice-albedo feedback to trigger an interglacial?
Perhaps Meyer is confused. In which case, it is disturbing that Matt Ridley has chosen to endorse Meyer’s views on feedbacks and climate sensitivity and even illustrate his lecture with graphs prepared by this clearly unreliable source.
So I amend my first sentence: Matt Ridley has a problem. And so do you.
Is that why you have retreated from substantive discussion into flippancy?
I think it is. Prove me wrong.
I think you need to adjust your tone if you want me to engage with you. I have been extremely tolerant of you at my site. Please don’t push your luck.
Now, we were discussing the graph.
Climate sensitivity is not really my area, but it looks to me as if the fixed points on Meyer’s graph are pretty much in line with AR4’s take on transient climate sensitivity.
“The transient climate response is better constrained than the equilibrium climate sensitivity. It is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely greater than 3°C.”
The numbers that Meyer has used therefore seem to be pretty much spot on. That being the case, then it looks to me as if there is a strong case that we are looking at the lower end of the range rather than the higher one.
I think it would be helpful if we stuck to the point originally raised – the graph – rather than moving on to the broader considerations you raise in your later comment.
Bishop Hill
Before we go on:
I think you need to adjust your tone if you want me to engage with you. I have been extremely tolerant of you at my site. Please don’t push your luck.
– you weren’t engaging with me (you wouldn’t even discuss the source of the graph)
– we are not at your site
– threats here are inappropriate
What AR4 is saying – but you don’t acknowledge – is that the transient CS for an equilibrium CS of 3C for the current doubling is close to observed values. Especially if you look at the land-only temperatures.
While you may prefer not to examine the contradictions in assuming a low value for CS, they are essential to any serious consideration of this topic. So they will remain on the table.
I maintain that both MR and yourself are mistaken. You have not shown why this is not the case.
I’m not sure why you think it’s inappropriate. It is up to me whether I engage with you or not. If you are not polite to me I will simply ban you from my blog. As I said before, I have been very tolerant of you for a long time.
Since this is where we are exchanging views, I can give you this information here as well as anywhere.
If I understand you correctly you don’t dispute the numbers in the graph but you are saying that there is contradictory evidence. Could you give me a link for what you are saying?
Bishop,
Such a sensitive chap, you are. Too bad the tone by many of your commenters doesn’t reflect your sense of propriety.
Well I do try to maintain a level of decorum!
I remember Judith C commenting that my site was “unbelievably polite” (or words to that effect) a year or so back. Unfortunately those days are probably behind me.
Bishop Hill
If you are not polite to me I will simply ban you from my blog. As I said before, I have been very tolerant of you for a long time.
Polite, or deferential? If I have been impolite above, I apologise, of course. But I’ve hardly been name-calling.
If I understand you correctly you don’t dispute the numbers in the graph but you are saying that there is contradictory evidence.
Have a look at the land-only data:
Decadal trends (C):
BEST: 0.28
UAH land only: 0.14
RSS land only: 0.2
CRUTEM3 land only: 0.21
Smoothed for readability with annual means:
1979 ““ present BEST; UAH land only; RSS land only; CRUTEM3 land only (common 1981 -2010 baseline); annual mean:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/offset:-0.14/mean:12/plot/uah-land/mean:12/plot/rss-land/offset:-0.14/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/best/offset:-0.6/from:1979/to:2010.2/mean:12/plot/crutem3vgl/offset:-0.4/from:1979/mean:12/plot/best/offset:-0.6/from:1979/to:2010.2/trend/plot/crutem3vgl/offset:-0.4/from:1979/trend
A trend of 0.2C/decade for land/TLT over land is plausible from the data. It’s interesting* that UAH trends lower than RSS and indeed everything else.
The 0.2C/decade trend is in line with the expected transient climate response so far if equilibrium CS is ~3C which is why Meyer’s graph is misleading.
*Why is it intersting that UAH land-only trends lower than RSS land-only? Because the global average TLT reported by UAH and RSS is nearly identical:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/rss/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/offset:-0.1/trend
There is clearly a contradiction, but it is not obvious to me that one would want to place too much emphasis on it – as I understand it, equilibrium climate sensitivity is poorly constrained, as is its relationship with transient climate response. There’s also an interesting weighing up to be done between the short-term (but presumably more accurate) temperature records you are citing and the longer term basis on which Meyer is making his case.
Bishop Hill
My understanding is that equilibrium CS is not poorly constrained. There is a strong basis for a value of ~3C. We can discuss this at length, but it would shorten the conversation if you could point to an uncontentious body of work supporting a low CS.
Failing that, we are stuck with an imperfect but increasingly coherent pile of data that supports the projections rather than undermines them. Again, look at the land-only curves and ponder.
I maintain that Matt Ridley is mistaken to argue for a 1.2C outcome and that Meyer’s unpublished graph is misleading.
@72 KK,
Keith, I love your blog & it is yours to run, but I do think your being a tough on the Bishop. He has not hid at his site and has shown up here here to address BBD, although perhaps not with the alacrity that BBD seems to expect.
Your comment at #30 & BBD’s “thumbs-up” @31 seem a bit, well, tribal.
Fred @61
Solar intensity stopped increasing around 1950. There is no way it was driving temperature increases beginning in 1980. Look at the graph.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
The crux of Matt Ridleys argument about climate sensitivity being small is the following statement:
“Since 1960 we have had roughly one-third of a doubling, so we must have
had almost half of the greenhouse warming expected from a doubling ““ that’s
elementary arithmetic, given that the curve is agreed to be logarithmic. Yet if
you believe the surface thermometers (the red and green lines), we have had
about 0.6â—¦C of warming in that time, at the rate of less than 0.13â—¦C per decade
““ somewhat less if you believe the satellite thermometers (the blue and purple
lines).
6”
This statement implicitly assumes that thermal equilibrium has been established at the current CO2 concentration. There is no way this is correct. Ridley is either disingenuous or ignorant.
I can’t find the justification for Ridley’s statement about what Hansen predicted in 1988.
“Remember Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 2″“4 degrees in 25 years. We are experiencing about one-tenth of that. We are below even the zero-emission path expected by the IPCC in 1990.”
Hansen’s testimony in 1988 showed a number of emissions scenarios. The closest to actual emissions was scenario B. It projected an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4C for a doubling of CO2. It projected an increase of 0.75C from 1988 to 2013.
His next paragraph is an argument about sulphur emissions not being a factor because the Southern Hemisphere has little emissions, and is warming more slowly than the Northern Hemisphere. He neglects the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has a lot less land area than the Northern Hemisphere, and land heats up much faster than oceans.
I can’t see how anyone can accept anything that Ridley says about climate science at face value. There seems to be a major gaffe in every paragraph.
Eric @78 says:
“Solar intensity stopped increasing around 1950. There is no way it was driving temperature increases beginning in 1980. Look at the graph.”
The graph in your link portrays total solar irradiance (TSI). TSI measurements do not focus on the most critical (for climate) solar emissions. No solar scientist who studies the effect of the sun on climate would do anything but laugh at the presentation in your link.
For an introduction closer to the truth on this issue see Prof. Courtillot’s presentation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/#more-37311
Fred,
Are you claiming that all 11 of the solar scientists quoted on the Skeptical Science page I linked to in post 78, which forms the basis of my objection, to your argument that “It’s the sun”, would laugh at their own statements? Or are you claiming these people are non existent?
There is no evidence for any change in cosmic ray intensity that would create a change in cloud cover which would create global warming. There is no data to support Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
Professor Courtillot’s presentation is a crock.
BBD
I’m not sure where you get the idea that climate sensitivity is not poorly constrained. The range of possible sensitivities seems large from the IPCC graphs. I also came across a quote from Gregory & Forster (2008):
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT2x = F2x/a is the warming in a steady state under 2xCO2, as discussed in section 1. Meehl et al. [2007] report that the 5″“95% range of equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP3 models is 2.1″“4.4 K. Over the last three decades, a lot of attention has been given to ΔT2x but it is still relatively poorly constrained. A number of studies examined by Hegerl et al. [2007] and summarized by Meehl et al. [2007] (Box 10.2) have set observational constraints, but these are fairly weak, especially on the upper bound”¦ F is poorly known”¦ Our observational constraint on the TCR is by contrast rather strong”.
I’ve already indicated, I’m not really familiar with the climate sensitivity literature. You say that there is an “imperfect but increasingly coherent pile of data”, but my understanding of the estimates of ECS quoted by the IPCC is that they all rely on model output to one extent or another, the exception being Forster & Gregory (2006).
Fred-
Have you read the comments by Leif Svalgaard in that thread?
Stu and Eric,
In re; Svalgaard’s comments – see Carla’s rejoinder to him. Overall, Courtillot’s presentation should put to rest the acceptance of a TSI graph as offered by Eric as indicative of solar influence on climate. For yet another elucidation on cosmic rays and clouds see:
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III
Bishop Hill @ 83
I’m not sure where you get the idea that climate sensitivity is not poorly constrained.
The likely value for CS is ~3C. I’m not sure why you think otherwise, as informed opinion is increasingly united on this.
See for example the oft-referenced Knutti & Hegerl (2008) review article. Note their Fig. 3.
Also Annan & Hargreaves (2006) and Hansen & Sato (2011), both of which eschew a modelling-based approach to estimating the value for CS in favour of empirical calculation.
I’ve already indicated, I’m not really familiar with the climate sensitivity literature. You say that there is an “imperfect but increasingly coherent pile of data”
I was referring to observations – please see my comment at 74 for a key example: land-only temperature data show a trend centring on 0.2C/decade. This is in line with the expected transient response so far to an equilibrium CS of 3C.
It is now clear that Matt Ridley is mistaken and has been misled by an unreliable and unpublished source. Warren Meyer is even a Tea Partier, for goodness’ sake. And yes, sometimes political affiliations do matter when it comes to climate science.
I asked you earlier to produce an uncontentious body of work supporting a low climate sensitivity. Nothing has been forthcoming.
I think it is time to admit that no such support exists in the literature and that MR and yourself are making unsupported arguments.
—————————————————————–
Annan, J. D., and J. C. Hargreaves (2006), Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.
Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity (draft):
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
Abstract:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025259.shtml
Annan’s blog – discussion:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
RealClimate – discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/
Hansen & Sato (2011) Paleoclimate implications for Human-Made Climate Change:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Reto Knutti and Gabriele C. Hegerl (2008), The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s
temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo337
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
BBD #86 says:
“The likely value for CS is ~3C. I’m not sure why you think otherwise, as informed opinion is increasingly united on this.”
While I am no expert on the CS literature, I have some familiarity with Lindzen and Spencer’s findings which show a much lower CS. From what I can tell, the controversy between Spencer and Dessler is ongoing on this topic.
Meyer is correct to cite CS as a cardinal issue in the climate change debate. Given Lindzen and Spencer’s ongoing research, the correct value for CS would seem to be up in the air, so to speak.
@87 Fred:
While I am no expert on the CS literature, I have some familiarity with Lindzen and Spencer’s findings which show a much lower CS.
Their low climate sensitivities are incompatible with known climatic states and transitions in the paleoclimatic record, like the LGM, the Eemian, or the glacial maxima to interglacial cycling generally during the Pleistocene.
Much of the “skeptic” narrative relies on fixating on a certain point while excluding the broader body of evidence (e.g. “look at these poorly cited thermometers” while ignoring SSTs, phenological changes, etc.), and climate sensitivity is no different. An equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2°C+ seems to be a robust feature of the climate system over the duration of the Phanerozoic, and a higher Earth system sensitivity in the presence of large ice sheets does as well. Trying to constrain sensitivity over the recent record is problematic because the uncertainties are so large relative to the forcings and temp change on such short timescales, whereas the reverse is true for large climatic changes in the paleo record.
Fred
While I am no expert on the CS literature, I have some familiarity with Lindzen and Spencer’s findings which show a much lower CS.
Lindzen’s attempts to argue for a low CS do not stand up to scrutiny. Run your eye over the abstracts of the following critiques of his ‘infra-red iris’ hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001). When you are ready, let me know and we’ll move on to Spencer:
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Lin et al. (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Harrison (2002)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(2002)083%3C0597%3ACODTEH%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Fu et al (2002)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html
Critiques of Lindzen and Choi (2009):
Trenberth et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
Lin et al. (2010)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226
Murphy et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
Dessler (2010)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract
Critiques of Lindzen & Choi (2011):
Dessler (2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
Keith
I’ve just posted a comment with many links which has quite properly had its collar felt by the spam filter. If you get a minute, would you mind posting bail?
Thanks
BBD, be a little patient. I’m ordinarily prompt. I don’t mind being prodded, but you might want to wait more than one minute…
thingsbreak
I’m glad to see you are still following this.
If you get a minute, please comment on the actual graph produced by Warren Meyer and used by Matt Ridley in his lecture.
Perhaps an additional perspective on exactly where Ridley goes wrong on CS might help convince Bishop Hill that there really is a problem here.
As the thread is getting rather long, here are a few relevant links –
Small .pdf of Ridley’s speech (see page 7 for Meyer’s graph):
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf
Meyer’s Climate Skeptic blog:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Meyer’s Arizona Tea Party page:
http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/profile/WarrenMeyer
Keith
Sorry – I thought that you wanted to be notified. A simple misunderstanding on my part.
Still new here…
@BBD, do you know where the original Meyer post featuring the chart can be found?
thingsbreak
No. I’ve been working through his blog posts, but he is prolific. No luck so far.
It’s not in the .pdf presentation either:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Climate%20Presentation%20Annotated%201-1-2010.pdf
I have a sinking feeling that it might be in the video. I will carry on looking through the blog.
If Bishop Hill would just ask Matt Ridley where he got the graph from, as I suggested days ago, this would be simple to resolve.
Eric (#80): I can’t find the justification for Ridley’s statement about what Hansen predicted in 1988. “Remember Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 2″“4 degrees in 25 years. We are experiencing about one-tenth of that. We are below even the zero-emission path expected by the IPCC in 1990.”
I can’t see this in any of Hansen’s work or Congressional testimony, but “Hansen” and “2-4 degrees” appears in an obscure “Miami News” (which ceased publication in 1988) article dug up by the denialosphere this year.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/hansen-1986-2-to-4-degrees-warming-from-2001-2010/
The article doesn’t quote Hansen and there’s no transcript of his Congressional testimony shown here. The 2-4 degrees is also expressed in Fahrenheit and refers to a single decade. Of course, Goddard and his tribe don’t entertain the possibility that this article blurb might not be an accurate representation of anything Hansen said. One commenter called Goddard on it. His dismissive responses are rather revealing.
My guess is that Ridley may have gotten his “2-4 degrees” from this blurb at one time, twisted it somewhat, and stuffed it into his speech in a version of the Telephone game.
Someone arguing that climate “skeptics” should be taken seriously really should try a little harder not to appear like sloppy tribal hacks.
BBD (#89):
Thanks for those references! I understand that there will be considerable back and forth on a topic which is so contentious. For example, Spencer is working away at his answer to Dessler. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/
While my area is not climate science I am aware that any convincing disconfirmation of a theory and it is game over. It will be interesting to see where these lines of research lead. Thanks for your inputs.
Fred
Happy to help.
I would have thought it obvious by now that it doesn’t matter what Spencer says. He is an isolated and much-rebutted contrarian, like Lindzen. His views play well with the ‘sceptics’ (who have confirmation bias to feed and don’t like the bigger picture) but not with anyone else.
He is very good at spinning himself as all sorts of things though. I’d be very careful about taking his blog writings at face value if I were you.
Rather, take a step back. Look at what the rest of the field is saying (see below and at # 86 above for example).
If you haven’t read Barry Bickmore’s critiques of Spencer, you should. They are highly informative. You say that climate science is not your area, so reading as much as possible before deciding it’s all nonsense would seem wise.
———————————
Barry Bickmore on Spencer:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/
Skeptical Science – discussion:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-feedbacks-anyone.html
Annan’s blog ““ discussion:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
RealClimate ““ discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/
BBD
When you say that “land-only temperature data show a trend centring on 0.2C/decade. This is in line with the expected transient response so far to an equilibrium CS of 3C.”
What is the source for that?
I thought we had worked out that it came from Warren Meyer? If you want more details, why don’t you ask at Matt’s blog?
BBD
You also seem to be confusing “maximum likelihood” with “well constrained”. The Knutti and Hegerl graph you point me to shows figures between 1 and 9.
Shouldn’t you just admit that the numbers in the graph are spot on with the IPCC’s figures for transient climate sensitivity?
thingsbreak
I will break if I don’t stop this soon…
The nearest thing I can find (it’s close) to the graph Ridley uses is in Meyer’s post on feedbacks here:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/the-single-most-important-point.html
It is recognisably either the ancestor or offspring of the elusive figure in Ridley’s lecture, with ppmv on the x-axis and T on the y-axis.
Bishop Hill
What is the source for that?
See # 74.
I see #74, which repeats the claim. But where does it come from. How is the relationship between TCR and ECS derived, and by whom?
Bishop Hill
You do not appear to have read any of the links I have posted above. This is very disappointing. Responding with yet more questions but no substantive case could be construed as evasive.
Where is the uncontentious body of works supporting a low climate sensitivity? What does the rest of the field say?
QED
I point out that one of the papers you direct me to(Knutti & Hegerl) doesn’t support some of what you are saying and you respond by accusing me of not reading any of the papers at all?
You are a strange fellow.
Bishop Hill
From the abstract of K&N (2008):
Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2″“4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values.
BBD (#98):
Thanks for taking the time to direct me to the Spencer and Lindzen references. As things unfold, I will look to see whether or not their future papers respond to the points mentioned in these articles.
From personal experience I realize that to truly understand and have an informed position in such a controversy it helps if you have your own data which you have analyzed. I will never be in such a position in climate science.
The first one I printed out was Bickmore’s piece. I notice that Spencer posted on Bickmore’s blog but the content of his posts was edited out. If Bickmore has good reason to dismiss Spencer’s position why wouldn’t he let Spencer have his say so that others could better understand the error of his ways?
Thanks again for your time in gathering these links for me.
Bishop Hill
I see #74, which repeats the claim. But where does it come from. How is the relationship between TCR and ECS derived, and by whom?
I misunderstood your earlier question. The ~2C TCR is from IPCC AR4 WG1:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2-3.html
Fred @85,
The only graph shown in your reference shows cloudiness related to the cosmic rays which follow the same 11 year cycle as TSI which the author concedes can also directly affect cloudiness as shown in the graph. He also made the claim, that there was a difference between the successive 11 year cycles due to the reversal of the polarity of the solar magnetic field, which affects the cosmic rays. It isn’t evident in the graph, and no reference was given which proves the case.
This is all beside the point, because there is no cosmic ray trend to match the global temperature trend. All we see is an oscillating 11 year cycle.
In addition, observations of the cloud cover in the wake of abrupt cosmic ray showers called Forbush events showed no trend regarding cloudiness.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041327.shtml
Eric @110:
Graphs showing the close relationship between temperature trends and cosmic ray activity are so easy to find over both geological and more contemporary time periods such that it is not worth posting the links here.
Currently, we have the interesting situation that temperatures both land and oceanic as well as oceanic thermal expansion are indicating less heat. CO2 levels are steadily rising while solar activity has tapered off (and cosmic rays are increasing). So even across the last few decades the solar theory is a closer fit for the data. AGW theory is not a fit.
Fred @ 108
I notice that Spencer posted on Bickmore’s blog but the content of his posts was edited out. If Bickmore has good reason to dismiss Spencer’s position why wouldn’t he let Spencer have his say so that others could better understand the error of his ways?
Those are links elsewhere, not redacted comments. Please do not misrepresent Bickmore like this in future.
Fred: Graphs showing the close relationship between temperature trends and cosmic ray activity are so easy to find over both geological and more contemporary time periods such that it is not worth posting the links here.
Let me help you out.
Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades ““ which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
So if effect of changes in solar activity (including CRs) was significant, it would be offsetting warming from other forcings (i.e. GHGs) in recent decades.
But don’t worry. There’s been much study as to the cosmic ray effect over the last decade. The impact is estimated to be somewhere between none to small.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/papers-on-the-non-significant-role-of-cosmic-rays-in-climate/