Climate Change Banter

[chubbs]

You can argue it if you can prove that as much as half of the warming since that time was not anthropogenic.

 

I don't find those arguments very convincing, mostly due to empirical energy budget papers....but you can certainly believe the temperature record and also believe an ECS under 1.5C.

That's the rub though no one can identify a natural factor that fits the long-term pattern of warming as well as AGW.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'm not sure what's the point of discussing a paper with an ECS under 1.5C. Unless you don't believe the surface temperature record, any value under that doesn't even match reality. We are currently 0.9C warmer than preindustrial times. Unless you think warming stops now abruptly for decades...

Not just that, but the paleoclimate record also points to a high ESC. We have several million years of solid, high-resolution proxy data suggesting that ESC is at least 2.5C, probably higher. I'm surprised this is still even debated because the observational data is doing exactly what the paleo data suggests it should.

[FloridaJohn]

ECS 0.6C:

 

 

 

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846

 

It doesn't appear that this paper was ever actually peer reviewed, but I did find this criticism of the paper. For those that don't feel like clicking the link, the takeaway is this:

 

"Harde has calculated only the atmospheric effects, and has ignored feedbacks completely."

 

Plus, he only used a two-layer model for his calculations.

[ORH_wxman]

Not just that, but the paleoclimate record also points to a high ESC. We have several million years of solid, high-resolution proxy data suggesting that ESC is at least 2.5C, probably higher. I'm surprised this is still even debated because the observational data is doing exactly what the paleo data suggests it should.

 

 

The problem with paleo data of millions of years old is that it is representing a very different climate system than the current one. More recent within the past few hundred thousand years is preferable since the oceans were closer to the their current geographical state...and of course, we know OHC component is an important part of ECS calculation.

 

You seem surprised by a lot of things that are debated in here...including the dubious accuracy of satellites. You shouldn't be surprised. There's a reason that error bars are listed as what they are, and it is because there isn't good agreement in the body of scientific evidence that warrants them lower.

[FloridaJohn]

 

ECS 1.1C:

 

 

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3b7otVla9qgJ:www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

 

Here's a critique of this paper.

 

"Ultimately the main flaws in LC11 are the same as those in LC09 - Lindzen and Choi simply did not address most of the problems in their paper identified by subsequent research, and what few issues they did address, they failed to explain why their results differ from those who attempted to reproduce their methodology."

[StudentOfClimatology]

The problem with paleo data of millions of years old is that it is representing a very different climate system than the current one. More recent within the past few hundred thousand years is preferable since the oceans were closer to the their current geographical state...and of course, we know OHC component is an important part of ECS calculation.

I think you're overestimating the speed of continental drift. Even five million years ago geologic configuration was essentially a copy of today's.

I can see how that argument may have merit on longer geologic scales where planetary geology was different, but not on the scale of a few million years. We have good mineral and ice-core derived data on at least the last 4 interstadials, and the last million+ years of swings into and out of ice ages.

You seem surprised by a lot of things that are debated in here...including the dubious accuracy of satellites. You shouldn't be surprised. There's a reason that error bars are listed as what they are, and it is because there isn't good agreement in the body of scientific evidence that warrants them lower.

I'm surprised at some the foundational debate in here, yes. When I see people arguing for a certain dataset because it's published potential error is 0.05K/decade vs 0.08K/decade, despite the fact that the two datasets are measuring entirely different domains, I'm surprised. The surface vs satellite debate is nothing short of stupid, because potential error does equate to realized error, and the two are not even remotely similar regarding what they're measuring in the first place. If that's not bad enough, some in here are arguing for error via stratospheric contamination and interpolation algorithms when they should be looking at sensor degradation and merging inconsistencies.

[Isotherm]

It doesn't appear that this paper was ever actually peer reviewed, but I did find this criticism of the paper. For those that don't feel like clicking the link, the takeaway is this:

 

"Harde has calculated only the atmospheric effects, and has ignored feedbacks completely."

 

Plus, he only used a two-layer model for his calculations.

 

 

Here's a critique of this paper.

 

"Ultimately the main flaws in LC11 are the same as those in LC09 - Lindzen and Choi simply did not address most of the problems in their paper identified by subsequent research, and what few issues they did address, they failed to explain why their results differ from those who attempted to reproduce their methodology."

 

 

 

Those two critiques that you linked are from blogs/websites, and appear to be written by people with questionable/unknown qualifications on the subject (especially when I see the phrase "denialist troll" written in association with this paper). According to the OJA & CC, papers are normally peer reviewed within 4 weeks. What led you to think the Harde paper is not peer reviewed?

[ORH_wxman]

How so? I can see how that argument may have merit on longer geologic scales where planetary geology was different than that of today's, but not on the scale of a few million years. We have good mineral and ice-core derived data on at least the last 4 interstadials, and the last million+ years of swings into and out of ice ages.

 

 

The flow of water from the Atlantic through to Pacific only ceased at the Panama Isthmus about 2.7 million years ago....so ocean currents were vastly different before that and this creates the problem of a state-dependent climate sensitivity when we study paleoclimate before that period.

 

Even more recently, we can try and constrain ECS, but we haven't been very effective. I've read conflicting papers based on paleo data...where some claim that we must have an ECS closer to 4C where others using the last interglacial place ECS confidently below 4C with a best estimate somewhere around 2.5C.

[AvantHiatus]

I believe our current geological configuration is more prone to rapid climate flux, one need not look further than the Younger Dryas and 8.2ky event. As well the sharp contrast among interglacials and glacials, which are endemic to the Pleistocene and Holocene.

 

The end result is that ECS is hard to pin down until tipping points are reached and cycled. Some processes such as ocean feedback systems require a human lifespan.

[Isotherm]

Not just that, but the paleoclimate record also points to a high ESC. We have several million years of solid, high-resolution proxy data suggesting that ESC is at least 2.5C, probably higher. I'm surprised this is still even debated because the observational data is doing exactly what the paleo data suggests it should.

 

 

I asked you this a couple weeks ago in the global temp thread, pertaining to your same statement above. Wondering what your thoughts are.

 

 

 

Can you expand upon your reasoning regarding this statement as it pertains to the sensitivity of Earth's climate to Co2 radiative forcing? While variability in the past can be indicative that Earth is sensitive to changes in certain radiative forcing(s), how exactly does that prove that the climate is very sensitive (e.g. ECS of 4c) to the radiative forcing of Co2? How do we know which radiative forcing(s) induced the variability in Earth's history when there were multiple climate forcings to account for? I'm not sure how you've come to the following conclusion: because Earth has shown strong variability throughout history --> climate must be very sensitive to radiative forcings, but then make the next logical jump to --> climate must be very sensitive to Co2 radiative forcing (and for the sake of this, let's say an ECS of 3-4C).

[ORH_wxman]

I believe our current geological configuration is more prone to rapid climate flux, one need not look further than the Younger Dryas and 8.2ky event. As well the sharp contrast among interglacials and glacials, which are endemic to the Pleistocene and Holocene.

 

The end result is that ECS is hard to pin down until tipping points are reached and cycled. Some processes such as ocean feedback systems require a human lifespan.

 

 

A lot of the interglaciel variability is due to external forcing changes (I.E. solar from orbital variation)...feedback from CO2 has to be isolated, because when we talk sensitivity, we are talking the changes due to doubling CO2, not other external forcings.

[csnavywx]

 

 

Isotherm, you're essentially making an efficacy argument. But as already determined by the IPCC, most forcing efficacies fall between 0.8 - 1.2. There is a slight slant towards most natural forcings having an efficacy average of about 0.9, whereas GHGs usually fall around 1.1. Ergo, the basic point does not change.To be sure, there's some uncertainty there, but If Earth was very sensitive to natural forcings, it's more sensitive to CO2.
 

[StudentOfClimatology]

The flow of water from the Atlantic through to Pacific only ceased at the Panama Isthmus about 2.7 million years ago....so ocean currents were vastly different before that and this creates the problem of a state-dependent climate sensitivity when we study paleoclimate before that period.

Arguing that the Isthmus closure renders the prior paleoclimate data non-analogous to modern day ESC seems like a stretch to me. Maybe it'd impact TCR-based studies more? Either way, I was putting the majority of my emphasis on the late Pleistocene. The data is pretty solid at this point, from what I know.

Even more recently, we can try and constrain ECS, but we haven't been very effective. I've read conflicting papers based on paleo data...where some claim that we must have an ECS closer to 4C where others using the last interglacial place ECS confidently below 4C with a best estimate somewhere around 2.5C.

Can you refer me to these papers? I suspect they diverge in estimating historical TCR and/or it's degree of variability. It's easy to get a faulty ESC via the paleo-data when using an incorrect TCR, or assuming that's TCR is unchanging.

[FloridaJohn]

Those two critiques that you linked are from blogs/websites

 

Well, I'm afraid that's about the only place you are going to find critiques these days. What were you expecting, stone tablets?

 

appear to be written by people with questionable/unknown qualifications on the subject

 

I'm not sure what qualifications you are looking for, but here's a short bio of the guy who wrote the Skeptical Science critique. He's seems well qualified to me:

 

"Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.

 

Dana has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.  He also blogs at The Guardian, and is the author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience.  He has published climate-related papers on various subjects, from the build-up of heat in the Earth's climate system to the expert consensus on human-caused global warming."

 

Here's another critique of Lindzen and Choi 2011 that mentions a failed peer-review of the paper at another publication. Unfortunately the link to the peer review notes is dead, but this blog post (I know, sorry) does summarize what was in it.

 

 

According to the OJA & CC, papers are normally peer reviewed within 4 weeks. What led you to think the Harde paper is not peer reviewed?

 

A couple reasons. First, Google Scholar has not indexed this paper. That may not mean anything, but when I searched for the authors name, the exact title of the paper, and the authors name and title of the paper, nothing came up. If other scientists were referencing that paper, it would be coming right up.

 

Second, I am unable to find an Impact Factor rating for this journal. I checked several different sources for that, and none of them even listed the journal. This leads me to believe this is a fringe journal, so it's quality is suspect. Like I said earlier, it isn't hard to make a website look like a legitimate journal, so for me, I require some way to corroborate the legitimacy of the journal before I can take it seriously. That's why I'm skepical of the paper. You may have different standards than me, but I'm not going to put much stock into a paper no one has apparently heard of.

[FloridaJohn]

ECS 1.5C:

 

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7554

 

 

This one seems like a legitimate paper. The journal has an Impact Factor around 6.9 or so (depending on year), and it appears on Google Scholar showing 21 cites to this paper.

 

An ECS of 1.5 is within the range from the last IPCC report, so this is considered a "mainstream" position. There are probably other papers that show this result, too. I will note that this is also the highest ECS on your list.

 

So of the seven papers you listed, you have one hit. You can see that there is not much support in the scientific community for ECS values of less than 1.5.

[ORH_wxman]

Can you refer me to these papers? I suspect they diverge in estimating historical TCR and/or it's degree of variability. It's easy to get a faulty ESC via the paleo-data when using an incorrect TCR, or assuming that's TCR is unchanging.

 

 

This is a good quick presentation on multiple methods used by different authors on constraining ECS with paleoclimate data from the last glacial maximum:

 

http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Schmittner-sensitivity.pdf

 

 

This is another paper that tries to reconcile multiple papers that come to different conclusions using the last glacial maximum:

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053872/full

 

 

This paper discusses the problems with disentangling the issues of state dependent paleoclimate for sensitivity, and could potentially explain why larger sensitivities occur if you look at the uber-warm climates (free version is kind of messy...2nd link):

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061121/full

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5391.pdf

 

 

 

There's many more, but it's just a flavor of how there is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of uncertainty using paleoclimate data.

[Isotherm]

Well, I'm afraid that's about the only place you are going to find critiques these days. What were you expecting, stone tablets?

 

 

I'm not sure what qualifications you are looking for, but here's a short bio of the guy who wrote the Skeptical Science critique. He's seems well qualified to me:

 

"Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.

 

Dana has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.  He also blogs at The Guardian, and is the author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience.  He has published climate-related papers on various subjects, from the build-up of heat in the Earth's climate system to the expert consensus on human-caused global warming."

 

Here's another critique of Lindzen and Choi 2011 that mentions a failed peer-review of the paper at another publication. Unfortunately the link to the peer review notes is dead, but this blog post (I know, sorry) does summarize what was in it.

 

 

 

A couple reasons. First, Google Scholar has not indexed this paper. That may not mean anything, but when I searched for the authors name, the exact title of the paper, and the authors name and title of the paper, nothing came up. If other scientists were referencing that paper, it would be coming right up.

 

Second, I am unable to find an Impact Factor rating for this journal. I checked several different sources for that, and none of them even listed the journal. This leads me to believe this is a fringe journal, so it's quality is suspect. Like I said earlier, it isn't hard to make a website look like a legitimate journal, so for me, I require some way to corroborate the legitimacy of the journal before I can take it seriously. That's why I'm skepical of the paper. You may have different standards than me, but I'm not going to put much stock into a paper no one has apparently heard of.

 

 

This one seems like a legitimate paper. The journal has an Impact Factor around 6.9 or so (depending on year), and it appears on Google Scholar showing 21 cites to this paper.

 

An ECS of 1.5 is within the range from the last IPCC report, so this is considered a "mainstream" position. There are probably other papers that show this result, too. I will note that this is also the highest ECS on your list.

 

So of the seven papers you listed, you have one hit. You can see that there is not much support in the scientific community for ECS values of less than 1.5.

 

 

 

I have a couple of thoughts in response to your posts. I disagree with the usage of impact factor rating as a means to assess the value of a scientist's work. I've linked an article here in which Bruce Alberts (editor in chief of Science) discusses the problems with impact factors, and the development of DORA.  

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/787.full?rss=1#pageid-content

 

"To correct distortions in the evaluation of scientific research, DORA aims to stop the use of the "journal impact factor" in judging an individual scientist's work."

 

"These recommendations have thus far been endorsed by more than 150 leading scientists and 75 scientific organizations, including the American Association"

 

In addition to several issues, it seems the impact factors may retard the progression of science.

 

 

"Any evaluation system in which the mere number of a researcher's publications increases his or her score creates a strong disincentive to pursue risky and potentially groundbreaking work, because it takes years to create a new approach in a new experimental context, during which no publications should be expected. Such metrics further block innovation because they encourage scientists to work in areas of science that are already highly populated, as it is only in these fields that large numbers of scientists can be expected to reference one's work, no matter how outstanding"

 

 

 

 

 

So I do not agree with discarding or devaluing studies based upon low impact factor ratings.

[Isotherm]

 

 

Isotherm, you're essentially making an efficacy argument. But as already determined by the IPCC, most forcing efficacies fall between 0.8 - 1.2. There is a slight slant towards most natural forcings having an efficacy average of about 0.9, whereas GHGs usually fall around 1.1. Ergo, the basic point does not change.To be sure, there's some uncertainty there, but If Earth was very sensitive to natural forcings, it's more sensitive to CO2.

 

 

 

Csnavy - appreciate the response. This seems to be exactly what I was referring to. I have a couple questions pertaining to this, but I'm going to look into it a bit more first.

[FloridaJohn]

So I do not agree with discarding or devaluing studies based upon low impact factor ratings.

 

I wasn't using the Journal Impact Factor to judge any particular scientist's work, I was using it as intended as laid out in your link:

 

"The impact factor, a number calculated annually for each scientific journal based on the average number of times its articles have been referenced in other articles, was never intended to be used to evaluate individual scientists, but rather as a measure of journal quality."

 

But if you don't like using Impact Factor, I am open to other methods. Since we know that there are "fake" journals out in the wild with little to no peer review of articles, and mainly serve to create confusion on politically sensitive topics, there has to be a way to separate the good journals from the bad.

 

What do you suggest?

[AvantHiatus]

Geoengineering? 

I think 2013/2014 convinced everyone that geoengineering was not necessary.

[WinterWxLuvr]

I think 2013/2014 convinced everyone that geoengineering was not necessary.

Geoengineering would probably be the quickest route to your 90% extinction.

We ain't as smart as we sometimes think we are.

[AvantHiatus]

Geoengineering would probably be the quickest route to your 90% extinction.

We ain't as smart as we sometimes think we are.

Sounds like you watched Snowpiercer. Geoengineering is not legally tenable in the international community. Russia is always looking for a reason to troll us now anyways.

 

This is because countries could blame one another for causing droughts, shifting patterns, etc. Things will have to get really bad for geoengineering to ever happen.

[AvantHiatus]

This guy is a joke.

 

[AvantHiatus]

You do an awful lot of garbage thinking on this subject without having any education on it at all. Blog posts from Climate of Gavin do not count. Wish mods would get his/her/it garbage posts out of here. Some like to read OBJECTIVE thoughts on Arctic Sea Ice. 

You know the arctic is cold/not torching at all when Global Warmer is nowhere to be found as well.

TGW has his own personal life/needs. Speak for yourself, you are obviously new here and come across as arrogant. I see your name, this is a troll account thru and thru.

 

[AvantHiatus]

I wish that was the reason for my inactivity.

He is talking out of his ass.

But it's not that cold.

If it snows and a cloudy vortex persists like 2013 that could reset things.

The biggest thing so far is the CAB still being covered with dry snow.

This is good for limiting later damage if a ridge pops.

False, don't respond to trolls. I'm disappointed, across the board with what has transpired in here lately. With you being scared of busting like before and being conservative and others being hostile without a good reason.

[AvantHiatus]

(Accelerating ice mass loss from Antarctica, Greenland and other continental glaciers and ice caps [GICs]. Image source: Geophysical Research Letters.)

Keeping all this in mind, let’s talk a little bit about the ugly transition to phase 2 climate change. A transition it now appears we’re at the start of. The — you should have listened to Dr. James Hansen and read The Storms of My Grandchildren — phase of climate change. The awful, long, stormy period in which the great glaciers really start going down.

*    *    *    *    *

In an effort to organize how human-caused climate change may proceed, it helps to break the likely progression of human-caused climate change down into three basic phases. For this simplification we have phase 1 — polar amplification, phase 2 glacial melt and storms, and phase 3 — runaway hothouse and stratified/Canfield Oceans.

[The_Global_Warmer]

False, don't respond to trolls. I'm disappointed, across the board with what has transpired in here lately. With you being scared of busting like before and being conservative and others being hostile without a good reason.

There is enough data to know how this is going to play out.

We can get a big melt season without the Greenland block.

The last two runs of the euro show how.

But without flushing there wont be the same level of ice loss.

[Isotherm]

I wasn't using the Journal Impact Factor to judge any particular scientist's work, I was using it as intended as laid out in your link:

 

"The impact factor, a number calculated annually for each scientific journal based on the average number of times its articles have been referenced in other articles, was never intended to be used to evaluate individual scientists, but rather as a measure of journal quality."

 

But if you don't like using Impact Factor, I am open to other methods. Since we know that there are "fake" journals out in the wild with little to no peer review of articles, and mainly serve to create confusion on politically sensitive topics, there has to be a way to separate the good journals from the bad.

 

What do you suggest?

 

 

I think each individual scientific paper needs to be assessed on its merits, in and of itself. I'm not a believer that one can broad-brush a particular journal as low-quality and consequently conclude that articles published in "low-quality journals" are also of low-quality. This was my disagreement in the E&E discussion. A journal's flaws is not necessarily relevant to the science published in a particular paper. There are drawbacks to every journal ranking measure that I've seen. A possible superior measure to the impact factor could be utilizing the h-index, but only in reference to an individual scientist, not to rank journals. However, even that, could be contaminated by politics. An excellent, objective measure of assessing the quality of an individual scientist's work doesn't really exist in my view.

[FloridaJohn]

I think each individual scientific paper needs to be assessed on its merits, in and of itself.

 

OK. That sounds like a good plan. What method do you suggest for assessing a paper on it's merits?

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think each individual scientific paper needs to be assessed on its merits, in and of itself. I'm not a believer that one can broad-brush a particular journal as low-quality and consequently conclude that articles published in "low-quality journals" are also of low-quality. This was my disagreement in the E&E discussion. A journal's flaws is not necessarily relevant to the science published in a particular paper. There are drawbacks to every journal ranking measure that I've seen. A possible superior measure to the impact factor could be utilizing the h-index, but only in reference to an individual scientist, not to rank journals. However, even that, could be contaminated by politics. An excellent, objective measure of assessing the quality of an individual scientist's work doesn't really exist in my view.

I couldn't agree more with this, overall. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

That said, it's also okay to acknowledge that E&E has published bulls**t science in the past, due to the very political bias issue you brought up at the end of your post. Therefore, giving E&E additional scrutiny, irrespective of whatever individual publication is in reference, is fully understandable.