All computer Climate Models Proven INCORRECT

:yawn:

 

George Box, the industrial statistician, said, "all models are wrong; some are useful". Ponder what he meant by that, then re-read Solomon's paper.

 

You're trying to make the case that this one person is Galileo and all the other climatologists are a bunch of uneducated medieval serfs - come on... AND you're trying to claim that her results are being suppressed.

When you believe everyone is out to get you and no one believes you, it's called paranoia...:loco: Please get yourself some meds before the voices tell you to kill someone...


Nobody is saying climate science is settled (least of all the climatologists), but there is widespread agreement that the trend clearly points in one direction. If Lindzen's data is in any way valid, it might shift the models ever so slightly (i.e.: a 9.8ft sea-level rise instead of 10ft), but the weight of evidence is so extensive already that one lonely factor (a.k.a.: a "magic bullet") won't change things much.

There's actually a branch of statistics that says if you use the best estimates of all the experts (even the ones that disagree completely), you can plot a target distribution that tends to be extremely accurate. (I believe this was used to discover the final resting place of the USS Scorpion in the middle of thousands of square miles of ocean, despite many conflicting hypothesis.) If on the other hand you pick the estimate of one and only one person, you're facing very long odds.

 

Well, I think this posting reaches a new low, for several reasons.

First, Susan Solomon never said that her work validates the iris hypothesis. I'll explain why not in a minute, but first, let's actually look at the abstract of her paper:

"Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.:

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming -- Solomon et al. 327 (5970): 1219 -- Science

Also worthwhile is one graph from her paper, published elsewhere:




To summarize: stratospheric water vapor rose (based on very limited data), then it fell (based on better data). The net effect, over this time period, from all these changes, is a slight decrease in predicted warming -- the right-hand blue bar is slightly shorter than the right-hand black bar.

Oddly, her abstract mentions neither disproving all climate models, nor proving the iris hypothesis. If she'd done either one, I think she'd talk about it.

Why didn't she say she had disproved all climate models? Well, that might be because her results are the output of a climate model. She took NASA's existing model (code and data freely available) and modified it so that she could feed in the measured changes in stratospheric water vapor. And got a better fit to the observed temperature trend.

Why didn't she say she validated Lindzen's iris hypothesis? Might be because this work has nothing to do with Lindzen's iris hypothesis.

Aside from the fact that the water vapor went up first, then down, as the earth warmed:

Lindzen's iris hypothesis is about cirrus cloud cover in the troposphere in the tropics, and Solomon looked at water vapor (not clouds) in the stratosphere (not the troposphere) over the entire globe (not the tropics).

Unless Lindzen has changed his mind about how the "iris" is supposed to work, then that's oh-for-three. Not clouds, not troposphere, not tropics. And no particular trend, just an up-and-down change in stratospheric water vapor.

I see on Wikipedia where somebody quoted Solomon, then added their own comment regarding the iris hypothesis afterwards. But whoever did that clearly didn't understand what the iris hypothesis is, at least, not in terms of the mechanism that Lindzen has proposed. Perhaps the original poster saw that and was confused by it.

Just to be thorough, I Googled Iris Susan Solomon, and came up with two relevant hits. One is the Wikipedia article, the other is the 2007 IPCC report where she was lead author, and the iris hypothesis was discussed.

So, let me summarize:

Solomon modified an existing climate model to demonstrate the impact of the observed up and down changes in water vapor in the stratosphere, showing the impact on the global temperature trend predicted by that model.

Lindzen hypothesized that warming would reduce tropical cirrus cloud cover, in the troposphere, and that this would allow more heat to radiate to space, thus the slow, steady, one-way reduction in tropical cloud cover would offset (e.g.) the significant positive water vapor feedbacks built into climate models. So, it's about a strong, negative cloud feedback over the tropical oceans.

At least, that's what the iris hypothesis was the last time I looked at it. No doubt it may yet morph over time. But near as I can tell, a) the observed impact on cloud cover has not been observed, b) even if it did occur, it's not clear that the increased outgoing radiation would necessarily offset the increased incoming insolation from the reduced cloud cover, and c) Lindzen's last empirical paper on this has already been shown to be grossly wrong, by Roy Spencer among others.

I mean, it's "iris" as in, the clouds are supposed to act like the iris of your eye. Interesting idea, just doesn't seem to be supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

 

Perhaps if you read a few more pages of science......

Concise as I can be:

CO2 cap and trade traces its origins to SO2 and NOx cap and trade programs, which, by the way, have been highly successful.

The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Ken Lay served on a presidential sustainability commission before everything fell apart. I have no defense for his personal characteristics and don't hold him in high regard. I simply thought perhaps that was how you drew a link between Enron and cap and trade. Guess not.

Again, please do not speak for me. I don't tell you what you think. I respect Mann's work. I don't have a clue about his personality or poker skills, and certainly don't elevate him to deity status, or I wouldn't have offered to eliminate both his and Lindzen's work from the discussion so we could move forward based on the remaining body of climate science work.

Interesting how you assess science skills based on physical appearance. I don't much like the appearance of Steven Hawking, but certainly appreciate his science.

Delay appears to be a primary skeptic strategy. We've already delayed too long. I'd certainly be game to revisit the discussion in a few years, but I'm unwilling to wait until then before taking long overdue action.

 

Re my #7 here, I did receive an email in reply from Dr. Lindzen. Somewhat surprising because I imagine his inbox contains quite a diverse assortment...

Anyway, I can at least report that does not regard the glacial/interglacial 3 degrees per CO2 doubling as disproving the Iris Effect, but with that based on uncertainties in the paleo. I would hesitate to interpret his comments any further. It is also clear that the Lindzen group's research related to these questions continues to focus on the tropics, which is related to #24 here.

Can't add much to the 'economics debate' also ongoing here, except to express my opinion (not for the first time) that more money spent now to try to increase terrestrial carbon uptake (and decreases loses via REDD+) seems like a very good idea. Ideally that discussion could take place separate from one concerning who (if anyone) would get rich therefrom.

 

Global warming is wrong because Goldman would make billions on cap-and-trade? That's your argument? Hmm, Susan Solomon... Salomon Brothers.... Goldman Sachs... it all makes sense now. Thanks for sharing.

 

"Apparently the Wiki quote is directly from the pages of her study"?

This is supposedly a quote literally taken from the article published in Science. Do you think that an article, in Science, would refer to itself as "The new study"? The iris hypothesis is kind of controversial, don't you think? Do you really think Solomon would have been allowed to just kind of toss out that iris hypothesis speculation, as kind of an afterthought, in Science.

Particularly when, as I explained above, the iris hypothesis has to do with clouds in the tropical troposphere, none of which she studied in this article.

Google the first couple of lines of text and see where it actually came from. Answer: The text from the "quote" is cut-and-pasted from the NOAA press release. Except the part about the iris effect, which is nowhere to be found in the NOAA press release.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

Somebody cut-and-pasted from the press release, incorrectly attributed that to the underlying scholarly article itself, then added the completely illogical part about the iris hypothesis.

That is most definitely not a quote from Susan Simon's article in Science.

 

One person "states" DOES NOT EQUAL "proven." Therefore the thread title is sensationalist and unfounded.

It should be obvious that no model will be 100% accurate. But to then say from that that they are all "proven incorrect" suggests that they are useless. It is hype and obfuscation to use a title like that.

This statement is just plain silly. AGW originates with humankind's insane burning of fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can. Goldman would profit from cap and trade, but nobody with half a brain imagines that cap and trade will address the issue. I OPPOSE cap and trade, so you cannot accuse me of being a corporate lackey! I advocate heavy taxes on carbon to encourage renewable energy.

I advocate $15 per gallon tax on gasoline, and taxes on other fuels proportional to their carbon content. However, I would not oppose a $25/gallon tax, just in case you think I'm being soft on carbon restriction.

A point about cap and trade: Cap and trade gives corporations free license to pollute up to some set limit, and then allows them to trade on their limit. Why the fowling Bunny should we let them pollute for free up to ANY limit? Make the jackasses pay for every ounce of pollution!

 

The main reason for the allowance giveaway in the legislation is to reduce the economic impact. You really can't go from not requiring any payment for emissions to a full payment overnight. There has to be a sense of fairness in laws and regulations.

 

Okay. I'm willing to implement the tax gradually. One day after passage a $1/gal tax goes into effect. The next day it goes to $2, then $3 the next day, and so on, allowing 15 days for the full tax to come on line.

Seriously, the greedy Bunnysuckers have been given a free ride since the start of the industrial revolution, when they turned England's cities black with their soot.

How about this for a compromise: Implement the tax gradually over a period of 30 years, but make it retroactive, starting 50 years ago, and charge them now for the back taxes for all the filth they've dumped into our lungs our entire lives!!!

 

Can I advocate knocking some sense into the both of you. If you increase the gas tax to that point you just destroyed the US and world economies

 

Please explain, (with some citation) how a say $1/gallon gas/carbon tax will destroy the US and world economies. If memory serves we have had gas prices in the last few years ranging from ~$2/gal to over $4, a 100% increase. I don't believe it brought down the economy. (That was due to other factors!)
A stable $1/gal tax might actually help stabilize oil prices, and economies.

 

$1/gal we could live with, as we know from recent history. But that really wasn't what daniel was proposing. He said $15/gal.

 

And if we do not put the brakes of petroleum usage, hard and soon (and a big carbon tax seems the only way to do it) future generations will have no energy, which will mean no industry. Your grandchildren will be living in the second stone age, if they survive the 99.99% death rate when industry collapses.

 

Going about it your way would drive is into the second stone age within a week after the tax was implemented.

Dont get me wrong. Im all for responsible renewable energy. But at this point wind and solar arent plausible enough to be used for more than a supplemental source.

Nuclear and Hydroelectric on the other hand would work

 

Even that extra $1 a gallon is stupid. When we have 4 dollar gas and 5 dollar diesel. The cost of everything else goes up exponentially as well.

That period a couple years back really put the hurt on alot of lower income families.

Like I said renewable energy is ok. But it has to be from a reliable source. And implemented properly.

 

$1/gallon tax is not stupid! On the contrary it is quite smart. Remember a couple of years ago with $4 gas? What happened? Peoples behavior changed! They stopped buying moronic Hummers (offense intended!) and demand for Prius' went through the roof!

If we just let fuel prices climb a nickel here and a dime there people don't make the changes that we need. We already have ~$1 tax on gas, it just goes to OPEC rather than to us! Personally we saw the hand writing on the wall, and have reduced our energy consumption net/net by ~75% in the last decade, with no loss of lifestyle, and no draconian measures.

Nukes are fine if you can convince me that we can handle the waste safely for it's dangerous life,,, thousands of years. If not, we are just trading one set of insecurity for another.

 

Icarus do you remember what that increase in gas prices did to other goods. Even people with cars that got similar fuel economy to a prius were making hard decisions.

I know of several families that had to cut back on groceries and the like because the price of fuel hurt them that bad.

It also put alot of shipping companies and the like out of business.