2011-05-06 13:50:48Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Y'all know the drill, feedback would be much appreciated.

Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability

2011-05-06 21:02:04
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.2.140

Great stuff. Again. Just a few thoughts:

- If it's just natural variability, where the heck does that leave his "Iris" effect?.

- And if the Earth's global temperature is so sensitive to variability , isn't that contrary to his claim of low climate sensitivity?. Or is he claiming the Earth singles out CO2 for special low, or no, sensitivity treatment?.

- What does he propose has happened to all that extra CO2, a known greenhouse gas?. Why hasn't that warmed the planet?.

Just pointing out that you should also highlight this tosser's lack of consilience. Perhaps not in this post, but maybe when you sum up all the Lindzen illusions?.   

2011-05-07 01:03:35Sum up
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
66.60.132.141
Yeah, I'm planning on doing a big Lindzen summation pretty soon. But I think internal variability gels with low sensitivity, because it's not a forcing, it's just moving heat around. Spencer's internal radiative forcing hypothesis, on the other hand, is hard to gel with low sensitivity. But I think technically Lindzen's arguments are self-consistent. It's just that each piece is wrong and contradicted by the evidence.
2011-05-07 01:07:07
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
66.60.132.141
Actually now that I understand their arguments better, maybe a series of summations for Lindzen, Spencer, and Christy. Though I think the latter two are the same, so maybe just two. But it would be interesting to look at Lindzen requiring A, B, and C, and none being true in reality, then the same for the UAH saps.
2011-05-07 08:04:18
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.4.112

"But I think technically Lindzen's arguments are self-consistent" - Perhaps vague enough for the point to be argued. I'd really like to know how the climate could show vast internal variability (as claimed) and yet be insensitive to extenal forcing. Intuitively that doesn't make sense - but another area for me to look into to sate my curiousity.

What I was getting at with the "Iris effect" is his "well if it's not that, it's this" approach, a.k.a clutching at straws, any straw!.

One of the stupidest things I've seen him write was to claim that CO2 was only a tiny proportion of the Greenhouse Effect, if you removed all the CO2 it wouldn't make much difference to the Earth's temperature because water vapor is the dominant GHG. And that coming from someone who is supposed to be an expert. Sheeeesh!.      

2011-05-07 08:16:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah I'll cover the straw clutching in the summary post.

I think you can argue that surface warming is caused by a large transfer of heat from the oceans, which wouldn't have any requirements for climate sensitivity, which would thus allow sensitivity to be low and GHGs to have little effect.  I think that's how his argument is self-consistent, but it's destroyed by the warming oceans.  That's also probably why he's been defending Spencer's internal forcing hypothesis.  It's his next straw.

Good point about the water vapor comment.  That came from his 1989 tech talk.  We could rebut that with the recent Schmidt and Lacis papers.  Maybe that could be the next Lindzen Illusion.  I presume he hasn't made that argument anytime recently though, so maybe I'll just capture it in the summary post.

2011-05-07 09:30:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.53.127

dana,

No, I wouldn't slight that 1989 effort: We want Lindzen on the record. All of him.

Let no stupid statement escape.

2011-05-07 15:37:58
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
I just don't think a belief he held in 1989 which he no longer subscribes to merits it's own post. But my plan is to show the evolution in Lindzen's thinking - the many straws he's grasped at. What he believed in 1989 (including that water vapor played 30 times more in the greenhouse effect than co2), what he believes now, how it forms a coherent argument, but how each individual piece is (and has been) wrong. I think it'll be a pretty major Lindzen takedown. I'll probably start on it tomorrow.
2011-05-07 19:35:51Lindzen summary
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188
Dana, if you think it fits with the tone of your post, we could also launch the Lindzen's Illusions page, with quotes, Lindzen articles, etc. I was saving it up for some Lindzen "event" but now is as good a time as any if it will enhance your post.
2011-05-07 20:25:32
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.105.9

"I just don't think a belief he held in 1989 which he no longer subscribes to merits it's own post"

Hey, people make mistakes, but that piece features prominently on one of those "thinktank" sites, and demonstrates a pretty woeful understanding of atmospheric science (yes, I know he knows better and was/is just bullshitting). Your call, of course.

2011-05-07 20:39:28BTW, this one good to go
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

Dana, if you like, you want to post this one next morning?

2011-05-07 20:51:27
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.105.9

Oops, forgot thumbs up.

2011-05-08 00:53:05
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Yeah John, I was hoping we could launch the LI page along with a nice snazzy button with the summary post. I think it would make sense, provided you have the time in the next few days. I know you're busy with the Sydney book launch and all.
2011-05-08 01:37:57water vapor
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Well, maybe I'll do a quick LI on water vapor.  I've already got all the info in the wrong answers dot com post, so I can probably put it together in less than an hour.

2011-05-09 22:55:46
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.3.138

Dana, note this comment from the Swanson 2009 paper you cite "Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings"

Had a quick look at the Von Storch paper referenced by Swanson, but didn't have time to read it thoroughly. Just thought I'd mention it. 

2011-05-10 01:30:26
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Rob.  I'll add a note to that effect in LI #7.