Glaciers in the Swiss Alps

[questioner]

Q:
The Vostok data specifically shows that CO2 concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes and continuing to claim the cores provide evidence to support the opposite is taking great liberty with the facts just like James whom you quote.

You don't know what your are talking about. James Hansen never claimed that CO2 concentration lead temperature change. He specifically said the opposite and explained why.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/0 ... _jeh2.html
When the temperature, CO2 and CH4 curves are carefully compared, it is found that temperature changes usually precede CO2 and CH4 changes by 500–1000 years on average. This indicates that climate change causes CO2 and CH4 changes. However, these greenhouse gas changes are a positive feedback that contributes to the large magnitude of the climate swings.

The only reason some magic bullet is needed is because James was looking for proof of his pet theory and he manufactured it. With the numbers of parameters that can be tweaked in the models any combination of the 22 + forces involved in climate could have been tweaked to provide the same results and any desired sensitivity would also result in the same results with "proper"Parameter modifications. FYI: Even though you continue to falsely claim that models are in some way representative of historic climate the truth is that they are not because they are guesses of what might have been and may be said to be consistent with observations when they are so far off they are useless. Or should we go back and discuss James 1988 model projections? Should we discuss the reliability of the GISS model runs? Should we discuss the ability of the various models to falsify each other? Should we discuss how using the output of models provides evidence of Pathological science along with the practices in Paleoclimate reconstructions?
Should we get back on track and discuss the evidence provided by the glaciers in the Swiss Alps?

You have made another of your ususal rants based on false information. There are no scientific arguments in the whole thing.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
I have been reading on the home page and came across this:
In 2008, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer and colleagues
used new satellite data to support Lindzen’s “adaptive iris” thesis, finding
“the net ... radiative effect of clouds during the evolution of the composite ISO [tropical intra-seasonal oscillations] is to cool the ocean-atmosphere system
during its tropospheric warm phase, and to warm it during its cool phase.”
In 2009, Lindzen and coauthor Yong-Sang Choi found “for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.”
In 2010, Lindzen and Choi responded to critics with a new study accounting
for orbital drift by ERBE satellites and other data issues. They once again found negative feedback by clouds in the tropics, which “implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.” If they are right, clouds act as a negative feedback to the warming that would otherwise be caused by man-made CO2 emissions, eliminating any net warming.
This is from "seven theories about climate"
And history provides no proof that they magically change from effects to causes. That is the "Magic Bullet Theory" I am talking about. If the "Magic Bullet Theory" worked it would require another "Magic Bullet" To start cooling!
With the theory of natural climate variation no "Magic Bullet is needed to explain the dramatic change from effect to cause and then back to effect when the climate starts cooling and the gasses begin reducing after temperatures reduce. If CO2 and CH4 are effects always as history shows then no contortions are needed to explain.
SORRY! JIM! You got it wrong again!

[questioner]

Q:
I have been reading on the home page and came across this:
In 2008, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer and colleagues
used new satellite data to support Lindzen’s “adaptive iris” thesis, finding
“the net ... radiative effect of clouds during the evolution of the composite ISO [tropical intra-seasonal oscillations] is to cool the ocean-atmosphere system
during its tropospheric warm phase, and to warm it during its cool phase.”
In 2009, Lindzen and coauthor Yong-Sang Choi found “for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.”
In 2010, Lindzen and Choi responded to critics with a new study accounting
for orbital drift by ERBE satellites and other data issues. They once again found negative feedback by clouds in the tropics, which “implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.” If they are right, clouds act as a negative feedback to the warming that would otherwise be caused by man-made CO2 emissions, eliminating any net warming.
This is from "seven theories about climate"
And history provides no proof that they magically change from effects to causes. That is the "Magic Bullet Theory" I am talking about. If the "Magic Bullet Theory" worked it would require another "Magic Bullet" To start cooling!
With the theory of natural climate variation no "Magic Bullet is needed to explain the dramatic change from effect to cause and then back to effect when the climate starts cooling and the gasses begin reducing after temperatures reduce. If CO2 and CH4 are effects always as history shows then no contortions are needed to explain.
SORRY! JIM! You got it wrong again!

Do you have a link to Lindzen and Choi 2010 paper? I can't find it, and your description of it doesn't really say much. Even Roy Spencer said L and C's analysis showing cloud feedback positive was flawed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/s ... ack-paper/

[Mike Davis]

Q:
The situation is that there are many research studies into the causes of climate change and the IPCC picked those that could be used to promote the cause or those that might be less than perfect containing opposing views to discredit all opposition. That allowed them to claim wrongly they included opposing views(those that fit a purpose).
I do not have to read the Lindzen and Choi paper to understand what they are trying to show because their paper is based on observation and logic not like some of the papers you link to.

[questioner]

Q:
The situation is that there are many research studies into the causes of climate change and the IPCC picked those that could be used to promote the cause or those that might be less than perfect containing opposing views to discredit all opposition. That allowed them to claim wrongly they included opposing views(those that fit a purpose).
I do not have to read the Lindzen and Choi paper to understand what they are trying to show because their paper is based on observation and logic not like some of the papers you link to.

It seems contradictory to claim that you don't have to read L C's paper because you believe it is based on observation and logic? How could you know that without reading it?
Actually the 2009 paper ignored the fact that energy in the atmosphere flowed horizontally as well as vertically in their analysis, and arbitrarily chose a time period which fit their conclusions about feedback, and did not use the actual models used by the IPCC to substantiate their claim that the IPCC's models give the wrong sign of feedback. Those flaws invalidate everything that they say in their paper. If they can rebut these criticisms it will be very surprising.
What I asked was where can I find Lindzen and Choi's rebuttal, to the many critics of the 2009 paper, including Roy Spencer, a global warming skeptic, and Trenberth's published reply?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... unraveled/

With the hype surrounding the manuscript, one would think that the article provides a sound, rock solid basis for a reduced climate sensitivity. However, our examination of the study’s methods demonstrates that this is not the case. In an article in press (Trenberth et al. 2010 (sub. requ.), hereafter TFOW), we show that LC09 is gravely flawed and its results are wrong on multiple fronts. These are the major issues we found:

* The LC09 results are not robust.
The result one obtains in estimating the feedback by this method turns out to be heavily dependent on the endpoints chosen. [edit] In TFOW we show that the apparent relationship is reduced to zero if one chooses to displace the endpoints selected in LC09 by a month or less. So with this method the perceived feedback can be whatever one wishes it to be, and the result obtained by LC09 is actually very unlikely. This is not then really indicative of a robust cloud feedback.

LC09 misinterpret air-sea interactions in the tropics

The main changes in tropical SST and radiative fluxes at TOA are associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and are not necessarily indicative of forced variability in a closed system. ENSO events cause strong and robust exchanges of energy between the ocean and atmosphere, and tropics and subtropics. Yet LC09 treat the tropical atmosphere as a closed and deterministic system in which variations in clouds are driven solely by SST. In fact, the system is known to be considerably more complex and changes in the flow of energy arise from ocean heat exchange through evaporation, latent heat release in precipitation, and redistribution of that heat through atmospheric winds. These changes can be an order of magnitude larger than variability in TOA fluxes, and their effects are teleconnected globally. It is therefore not possible to quantify the cloud feedback with a purely local analysis.
More robust methods show no discrepancies between models and observations
In TFOW, we compute correlations and regressions between tropical SSTs and top-of-atmosphere (TOA) longwave, shortwave and net radiation using a variety of methods. LC09 found the observed behavior to be opposite from that of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs and conclude that the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE. However, in our analysis comparing these relationships with models, we are unable to find any systematic model bias. More importantly, the nature of these relationships in models bears no relationship to simulated sensitivity. That is, the metric developed by LC09 is entirely ineffective as a proxy for simulated sensitivity.

# LC09 have compared observations to models prescribed with incomplete forcings

The AMIP configuration in the model simulations used by LC09 have incomplete forcings. The AMIP protocol started off a test only of how an atmospheric model reacts to changes in ocean temperatures, and so models often only use the ocean temperature change when doing these kinds of experiments. However, over the period of this comparison, many elements – greenhouse gases, aerosols, the sun and specifically, volcanoes changed the radiative fluxes, and this needs to be taken into account. Some models did this in these experiments, but not all of them.

For instance, the dominant source of variability in the reflected solar flux arises from aerosols associated with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June of 1991 yet all but 2 model simulations examined by LC09 omit such forcings entirely. Other radiative species are absent from the models altogether. It is thus obviously inappropriate to expect such model simulations to replicate observed variability in TOA fluxes.

# LC09 incorrectly compute the climate sensitivity

By not allowing for the black body radiation (the Planck function) in their feedback parameter, LC09 underestimate climate sensitivity. Using the correct equations, LC09 should obtain a feedback parameter and climate sensitivity of -0.125 and 0.82 K, respectively, rather than their values of -1.1 and 0.5 K. In contrast, TFOW results yield a positive feedback parameter and greater sensitivity estimate, though we also caution that this approach is not a valid technique for estimating sensitivity, as a closed and therefore global domain is essential (though not by itself sufficient). Lastly, LC09 fail to account for variability in forcings in estimating sensitivity.

You claimed there was a rebuttal published by Lindzen and Choi in 2010, but I can't find it or any reference to it. Is it a figment of your imagination?

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Two things: If you had read I said I was quoting from a paper I was reading at the time so none of the claims you read were mine. I was providing another point of view on the climate situation and because it was related to our discussion because you brought up the models again and hijacked this thread away from the Swiss Alps. Then you decided to get an opinion from Surrealist Climate about Lindzen and Choi. I do not go to a fortune teller and tend to stay away from pronouncements made by those who "Channel the masters" for the esoteric meaning of climate! Your web site has lost credibility by their association with and condoning the actions of con men and frauds. Find some group not associated with the IPCC if you want people to read what you put on this site!
What Lindzen and Choi described matches what is observed in the real world! What the models used by the IPCC provide is fantasy created to support an unsupportable opinion. The models can not be verified and the results are so diverse they either become some type of non science or falsify each other. I knew Astrologers with more ethics than is displayed by your heroes. The astrologers admitted their limitations and advised their clients they were providing what if scenarios. At least those who were trained by, certified by , and followed the practices set down by their association.
Q:
I have been wondering
: How many Magic Mushrooms need to be ingested to see a "Robust result"?

[questioner]

Mike,
It seems that you are not going to reply to the scientific arguments that I have made or quoted. L & C got so many things wrong, it is remarkable that their paper got published in the peer reviewed literature. If you have a real rebuttal to the arguments I quoted I would like to know what it is. If you can't do this why clutter up the server with ad hominems and rants? It only makes you look foolish.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
You actually used a work by the team that can not find the missing heat in the system that is not there. This is the group that has spent time and money searching for something that only existed in their models. You actually expect someone to be impressed with those Losers (Get it They lost warmth that was never there so thy are losers )It is a real travesty that they are still associated with any research institute and the funding agencies are still providing them with money! This is the same group promoting the "Flat Earth Theory" that was falsified long ago. You know the KT cartoon of circular reasoning. hey fit right in with Brother Jim with his theory that future events drive past events. You actually believe these people yet claim "I" am taking up space with foolishness. WOW! You must be a really Big Wheel, or were when you worked because you continue to go around in circles. If you continue chasing your tail you will never find the answers!