Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_spotlight]

Lindzen is reminiscent of the Electric Universe movement. No model of his own, just contrarian to consensus science. Oh, and then there's the money flow into his pockets from big oil. Comes in handy after retirement. This Galileo is not rejected by the priests. He's been disowned by his own alma mater. But thanks to WaterDog I can rest easy that the planet is safe even though my favorite backpacking haunt, Yosemite, that I've trekked in my whole life is now useless as it is inundated in smoke every summer due to the dwindling forests fuel in Mariposa county. I am following in his footsteps and abandoning my acceptance of Quantum Mechanics because, you know, Einstein and spooky action at a distance. Can't have a brighter scientist than him in your pocket.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lets take a close look at Dog's Argo graph. Dog didn't, but we will. This is one of Monckton's graphs. Monckton is notorious for creating non-standard, deceptive graphs. So when you know a graph is one of Monckton's, you need to check it out very closely.

So, let's look at it. The first thing I noticed is that the unit of measurement is temperature. But when I go to sources in the scientific literature, the oceans are always measured in heat content. Here's an example: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 08GL037155

So, why would Monckton use temperature instead of heat content? What's the difference between temperature and heat content? Put simply, temperature ignores the amount of the substance -- heat content includes the amount of the substance. As an analogy. If I have a hot cup of coffee, I can use the heat in it to melt some ice cubes. If I have a huge vat of coffee at the same temperature, I can melt more ice. Why? Because, even if both are the same temperature, the vat has lots more heat energy available to melt the ice.

The science tells us that about 93% of the heat energy from global warming initially goes into the oceans. So, we need to know how much of that heat will end up being used to heat the surface temperature of the earth as the ocean/atmosphere system works its way towards equilibrium. Temperature doesn't tell us that. Heat capacity does.

So why did Monckton use temperature? Because he gets to ignore the fact that the volume of the ocean is lots bigger than the surface of the earth -- and the surface temperature is what we are interested in. Tricksy, tricksy, tricksy.

And, while Argo is the best measuring system we have, we have historically had other ways to measure ocean heat content. And while those other methods are less reliable than Argo, less reliable is not the same as worthless.

If you go to Monckton's source, Argo's webpage, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html, you'll find this:

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 10-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009).

Now scroll up to Monckton's graph again. You see that decrease in temperatures in the first couple of years? That's during the time that the Argo folks explicitly warn about being unreliable because of "sparse global sampling". Why does Monckton include those years, then? Because they are the only part of the data sent that shows a decrease in ocean temperatures. He uses data that he knows is unreliable because it allows him to show a smaller trend in warming.

Not only that, he promotes his graph despite the fact that the time period that Argo has been in operation is too short to produce data from which a trend can be detected.

And the other data on Ocean Heat Content that Monckton doesn't show you? It's right on that Argo page: just click on the link.

All this took me about 30 minutes to figure out: too short of time period, intentional use of unreliable data, temperature instead of heat content. Dog could have figured it out, too. But Dog didn't look because Dog doesn't care.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Beneath the surface heaves the vasty deep. The least ill-resolved source of data about the temperature of the top 1900 m of the ocean is the network of some 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys.

Oh my god! Stop quoting your prophets! Tell me in your own words.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... thumb4.jpg

Your graph says 0 to 1900 m dept at 70 N to 70 S. I agree the ocean hasn't warmed that much if you go all the way down to 1900m, but what is the warming at 0 to 700 m? If the atmosphere isn't warming, then what is warming the oceans? You admit "The ocean is barely warming".

[_DoubtingThomas]

Lets take a close look at Dog's Argo graph. Dog didn't, but we will. This is one of Monckton's graphs. Monckton is notorious for creating non-standard, deceptive graphs..

Exactly.

[_Water Dog]

Lindzen is reminiscent of the Electric Universe movement. No model of his own, just contrarian to consensus science. Oh, and then there's the money flow into his pockets from big oil. Comes in handy after retirement. This Galileo is not rejected by the priests. He's been disowned by his own alma mater. But thanks to WaterDog I can rest easy that the planet is safe even though my favorite backpacking haunt, Yosemite, that I've trekked in my whole life is now useless as it is inundated in smoke every summer due to the dwindling forests fuel in Mariposa county. I am following in his footsteps and abandoning my acceptance of Quantum Mechanics because, you know, Einstein and spooky action at a distance. Can't have a brighter scientist than him in your pocket.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

These sorts of arguments are weak, brother. Thoughtful criticisms are fair and welcome. I have no doubt Lindzen would welcome them himself. Character attacks like this reek of desperation. It's no different than exmos getting it in their heads that Q15 secretly know it's BS and are conspiring in a dark room somewhere. Ironically, in this case it is Lindzen who is at the weak end of that power dynamic. He is the David Bokovoy or Michael Quinn. How is Lindzen getting rich off big oil, where is there any evidence for that? It's like Tommy Lee Jones in the movie Fugitive. Why did Harrison Ford kill his wife? Oh, for the insurance money. But he's a doctor, he's already rich. Lindzen had a long and impressive career with MIT. He has full tenure and retirement. He continues to cash their checks and is not in any way starving. What could big oil even buy him that he doesn't already have? I see a thoughtful man who dedicated his life to climate sciences and is genuinely sad to see it hijacked by politicized crazy. Instead of relaxing on a beach, he continues to spend his time nerding out on this stuff trying to be a force for good and sanity. It is quite unbecoming to disparage him like this. Disagree with him, cool. Argue against him on the merits of the science all day long. That is good and healthy. Attack him personally? Those people can go “F” themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Consensus? LOL. There is no damn consensus by any stretch of the wild imagination.

As usual, the left engages in abject hypocrisy. Total derangement. Lindzen is getting rich off big oil! Really? But the people who's jobs literally depend on CAGW being a thing have no bias? REALLY? Really, mother idiots? All these scientists, seriously, what would they be doing right now?

The other day I went to one of my usual lunch hangouts. I bumped into a woman who I was used to seeing at another one of my lunch hangouts. She is usually waitressing at this other place. Seeing her at this other place we chatted for a bit. She was about to head over to the other place for her waitress job. She was having lunch and a beer after her morning job. Turns out this lady has a masters degree in art and teaches at a university nearby a couple times a week. She has a very impressive education from some fancy schools and is an accomplished artist. Very smart woman. But she needs to waitress fulltime in addition to her professional pursuits to make rent.

Where the heck do you think all these climate scientists and researchers would be if global warming wasn't a thing? Anyone who doesn't recognize that these people have a massive financial bias is, well, don't make me be rude. It is no different whatsoever from Q15, general authorities, and all the peeps that work in the COB or BYU or other aspects of Mormon-driven Utah economics.

I freaking do it myself, yo. If certain snakes here figured out my in real life identity, they'd immediately doxx me for hypocrisy. Because you would see I have bid for and won federal dollars by leveraging proposals laced with all the right global-warming-concerned-and-curious buzzwords and phrases. Is it any shock that those who swim against these financial currents just so happen to be the ones who had retired or otherwise aren't dependent on these political economics any longer? No. It's not. Not at all.

Lookie lookie, another scientist comes out full throat against the IPCC after retiring. When one's livelihood doesn't depend on it, people have this strange tendency to be more likely to tell you what they really think.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/10/germ ... lity-loss/

[_Water Dog]

Lets take a close look at Dog's Argo graph. Dog didn't, but we will. This is one of Monckton's graphs. Monckton is notorious for creating non-standard, deceptive graphs. So when you know a graph is one of Monckton's, you need to check it out very closely.

So, let's look at it. The first thing I noticed is that the unit of measurement is temperature. But when I go to sources in the scientific literature, the oceans are always measured in heat content. Here's an example: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 08GL037155

So, why would Monckton use temperature instead of heat content? What's the difference between temperature and heat content? Put simply, temperature ignores the amount of the substance -- heat content includes the amount of the substance. As an analogy. If I have a hot cup of coffee, I can use the heat in it to melt some ice cubes. If I have a huge vat of coffee at the same temperature, I can melt more ice. Why? Because, even if both are the same temperature, the vat has lots more heat energy available to melt the ice.

The science tells us that about 93% of the heat energy from global warming initially goes into the oceans. So, we need to know how much of that heat will end up being used to heat the surface temperature of the earth as the ocean/atmosphere system works its way towards equilibrium. Temperature doesn't tell us that. Heat capacity does.

So why did Monckton use temperature? Because he gets to ignore the fact that the volume of the ocean is lots bigger than the surface of the earth -- and the surface temperature is what we are interested in. Tricksy, tricksy, tricksy.

And, while Argo is the best measuring system we have, we have historically had other ways to measure ocean heat content. And while those other methods are less reliable than Argo, less reliable is not the same as worthless.

If you go to Monckton's source, Argo's webpage, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html, you'll find this:

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 10-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009).

Now scroll up to Monckton's graph again. You see that decrease in temperatures in the first couple of years? That's during the time that the Argo folks explicitly warn about being unreliable because of "sparse global sampling". Why does Monckton include those years, then? Because they are the only part of the data sent that shows a decrease in ocean temperatures. He uses data that he knows is unreliable because it allows him to show a smaller trend in warming.

Not only that, he promotes his graph despite the fact that the time period that Argo has been in operation is too short to produce data from which a trend can be detected.

And the other data on Ocean Heat Content that Monckton doesn't show you? It's right on that Argo page: just click on the link.

All this took me about 30 minutes to figure out: too short of time period, intentional use of unreliable data, temperature instead of heat content. Dog could have figured it out, too. But Dog didn't look because Dog doesn't care.

Some things at the moment, will return to this. At a glance, you seem to be supporting what I said. The point that, "global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals" is the fundamental point I'm making. We do not know if the oceans are "warming" or not. There simply isn't enough data time wise. As for the units of measurement. I'll get back to this to see if there is any legitimacy to your point. I agree with you that in terms of modeling the problem, heat capacity is what we're after. When it comes to discussing the matter, though, no, temperature is the unit we're using for these discussions. Temperature is factor of the energy content. You do raise an interesting point that I'm curious to dig into more. Given how low resolution this data is. We're talking about a couple thousand points of measurement. Spot measurements only a few times a month. How in the world can that be used to derive energy content? Given the differential nature of the oceans that sounds a bit fishy to me. But no, I haven't read to see the engineering behind these sensor buoys. And you haven't either, so it's prickish to act otherwise. Your basic accusation though is that the skeptical side of the CAGW debate is misrepresenting the sensor data to make it seem less credible than it is. Okay, I'll dig into this more. That will take some time.

[_spotlight]

Lindzen is reminiscent of the Electric Universe movement. No model of his own, just contrarian to consensus science. Oh, and then there's the money flow into his pockets from big oil. Comes in handy after retirement. This Galileo is not rejected by the priests. He's been disowned by his own alma mater. But thanks to WaterDog I can rest easy that the planet is safe even though my favorite backpacking haunt, Yosemite, that I've trekked in my whole life is now useless as it is inundated in smoke every summer due to the dwindling forests fuel in Mariposa county. I am following in his footsteps and abandoning my acceptance of Quantum Mechanics because, you know, Einstein and spooky action at a distance. Can't have a brighter scientist than him in your pocket.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

These sorts of arguments are weak, brother.

Agreed, and being a contrarian without putting forth your own model that addresses the data and accounts for the same in a better manner than that which you are criticizing is not science nor the practice thereof. (Which was the point of my post.)

[_Water Dog]

Something I'd love the alarmists to answer. I have no idea if these arguments are sound or not, but what's the answer to them? All this talk about chart gimmicks and such. Why do alarmists plot from 1979? Instead of Earlier? Why 19th century instead of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years earlier? These historical datasets that say we're actually in a period of historically low CO2 levels, are they wrong? Were CO2 concentrations in the thousands when dinosaurs walked the earth? Have ecological extension events been tied to low CO2 levels?

[_Water Dog]

Agreed, and being a contrarian without putting forth your own model that addresses the data and accounts for the same in a better manner than that which you are criticizing is not science nor the practice thereof. (Which was the point of my post.)

But again, this is like RI's hackneyed argument that only a prophet can speak out against a prophet. Within the sober reality of scientific limitations, Lindzen HAS done what you're talking about. He has developed models. He has critiqued and adjusted models. He has punched holes in bad models. He has put forward his own forecasts, which have been far more accurate than the IPCC. He was one of the guys who used to work for the IPCC and help them with their forecasts. What else do you expect of him? You want him to pull a rabbit out of a hat and present the world with a prophet-like model that simulates the earth perfectly? Again, burden of proof. He doesn't need to do that in order to point out that the prophet isn't a prophet and his prophecies aren't panning out. He doesn't need to invent a time machine and present video evidence of the Mayans to merely point out all the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, the model, presents a certain narrative. Material facts, however, are inconsistent with that narrative. Like horses. Like metallurgy. Whatever.

[_spotlight]

Something I'd love the alarmists to answer. I have no idea if these arguments are sound or not, but what's the answer to them? All this talk about chart gimmicks and such. Why do alarmists plot from 1979? Instead of Earlier? Why 19th century instead of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years earlier? These historical datasets that say we're actually in a period of historically low CO2 levels, are they wrong? Were CO2 concentrations in the thousands when dinosaurs walked the earth? Have ecological extension events been tied to low CO2 levels?

With all that "strong" negative feedback one has to wonder how it is that the earth ever entered a snowball earth phase or had been warmer than today eh? What you are ignoring is the rate at which these changes took place and evolution's ability to keep up. Well some life forms will likely survive if Lindzen et al is wrong right? Just like during the Permian extinction event. At least the Extremophiles.