Friday, September 20, 2013

Open letter to Professor Anastasios Tsonis: Are you serious?

{I'm just a working guy and writing is a hobby so to speak, so please excuse the rough edges. 
But some of these issues and deceptive practices need to be exposed.
As for the writing I hope this evening's edits have helped a bit.   9/20/2013}
Also see  Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)
Professor Anastasios Tsonis replies plus comments (open letter 3)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I would like to share the following open letter.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis,

We have exchanged a few emails and I must say I am very disappointed by your evasion.  A couple fundamental questions regarding the general scientific understanding of Earth's geophysical processes and you turn silent as a salt pillar.  

While our email exchange has taught me nothing about global warming, it has given me another insight into the perplexing mind of your typical denialist type.

It all started with a pal waiving a quote of yours in my face: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped."

When I investigated I discovered that you were considered a distinguished professor in your field.  That's when I decided to write you and ask about the statement.  In truth, I was expecting a bit of explanation that would reveal that your words were taken out of context and that they did not actually mean you believed our planet's warming trend had reversed itself.

Just in case I was wrong, I included these questions:

          "Weren't the 2000s the warmest decade on record?"

          "Where does that claim leave the matter of 'greenhouse gases' and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?"

          "What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?"
~ ~ ~ 

To my surprise you acknowledged the quote and it's implication that greenhouse gas driven global warming had actually stopped and reversed itself.

To my first question, you suggested the top of the mountain is always the highest point and that it means nothing, since we are now going down the other side.  - Sort of weird logic... if the warming of the 80s, 90s stopped - how can the 2000s be warmer than the "top of the mountain" 90s?  {Sounds like a variation on that denier's optical illusion know as the "global temperature escalator" }

You altogether ignored the question regarding our planet's radiation budget imbalance: "I don't have a comment on this. It's an open question"

To the third question, about the increasing heat being stored in the oceans, you reply "it is another argument without solid proof."  

I guess here we can go into a philosophical discussion regarding "solid proof".  I mean, it can be argued that there is no "solid proof" the sun will rise tomorrow morning, either.  

In my email, I politely asked for a more detailed response, you said you were too busy to answer any such questions.  But, that doesn't seem to be stopping you from going around making claims that can only be interpreted as denying the basics of well known GHG geophysical facts!  You compound the impression of deceit by denying ARGO deep ocean observations.  Not to mention that you are ignoring our planet's cryosphere observations.

HOW can you justify ignoring such huge chunks of fundamental evidence and understanding?


It makes me wonder, Professor Tsonis, what happened along your path?  
A distinguished professor now willfully ignoring important evidence. Why?

What events in your life so degraded your commitment to honest and open scientific discussion?  

From my perspective, your professional trajectory seems to have split off into that Crichtonesque paperback-writer's realm of political story-telling mode - that is, an "artiste" who feels free to pick and choose facts - as is convenient for his storyline.  As opposed to the serious "learning" motived scientist.

I'm no scientist but I know the overwhelming evidence indicates that the ARGO ocean sensing system, together with earlier ocean observations, present clear and solid evidence that oceans, have indeed warmed at accelerated rates.  

Sure... one can haggle about exact fine-tuned numbers and fringe issues to no end - but, such misdirection doesn't alter any of the known facts.

Professor Tsonis, the thing I'm trying to wrap my head around is: 
What are your recent pronouncements all about?  What inspired them?                     
What are you trying to accomplish?

Why do you feel justified ignoring reams worth of important climatological information?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Here are some easy reading articles and links that present the evidence at hand.  
OK, it is at the layperson's level - But, don't discount it! 

Truth is, the supporting scientific data and papers and arguments would drown regular folks.   That's why we need professionals to help translate.  Those who are interested can learn a great deal from all this information.  But, instead we get characters, playing games focused on keeping the public confused. 

You claim to be a scientist, yet feel free to present an incomplete story intent on making gullible people believe it's OK to ignore all this information - in favor of juvenile cherry-picked arguments.   

But, the evidence does exist... and what we ignore will hurt us and our children!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ocean Temperature
~ ~ ~
World's oceans are getting warmer, faster
Roz Pidcock | 25 Mar 2013, 
~ ~ ~
Argo research papers submitted or in press
~ ~ ~
New Study Finds Ocean Warmed Significantly Since 1993 - (05.19.2010)
~ ~ ~
Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Next I present a lecture by Professor Dean Roemmich of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography about the interesting history of tracking deep ocean temperatures; a history that happen to go back to Darwin's days.  

On the one hand, there is a compelling accumulation of evidence reflecting that oceans have been experiencing a warming trend for more than a century.  

On the other hand, it's true the evidence presented, wouldn't be enough to convict a person of a capital offense, or to build a rocket.  

But, then we are talking "Earth Sciences" and not "Physics and Engineering Science."  

Understand what I'm trying to say here?  Let me spell it out - it is dishonest to apply the standards used in basic Physics with the realities of understanding our Earth's geophysical operations.

Mr. Tsonis, contrary to your cynical claim, climatologists and other scientists have a damned good handle on what is going on within our atmosphere.  As any objective evaluation of climatological evidence makes absolutely clear.  Namely, increased atmospheric Greenhouse Gas concentrations are driving our "Global Heat Distribution Engine" (read climate) into more energetic realms.

We live in a the real world that demands recognizing the reality around us for what it is - then reacting to what we know to the best of our abilities.  

Our daily lives are not about focusing on and worrying about every loose-end or potential pit-fall.  In fact, obsessing over every inconsequential detail can cross over into actual mental illness and in any event is often quite counter-productive to living a happy productive life.  

The point I'm trying to make is that in the real world, we move forward, we must act on less than perfect knowledge and then dance the dance of life, to the best of our abilities.  Hopefully learning along the way - and keeping 'it' constructive rather than destructive.



135 Years of Global Ocean Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science

UCTV - Sep 6, 2012



~ ~ ~

Also see: The Role of the Oceans in Climate
Kevin Trenberth: Senior Scientist and Head of the Climate Analysis Section
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As for Earth's radiation budget - it is simple and understandable physics  - Earth does continue warming, even if selected surface temperature records indicate a "slow-slow." 

Here are a collection of links to various serious descriptive articles at Science of Doom  (don't let the dramatic name fool you; they have very serious physics on their mind.) 

SUNDAY, MAY 19, 2013 
Science of Doom - understanding the physics of global warming 
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/05/science-of-doom-understanding-physics.html 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2013
CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? The Science of Doom 
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/01/co2-insignificant-trace-gas-science-of.html

Professor Tsonis,
Here are links to a series of videos with layperson friendly explanations of the various points regarding the Earth's radiation budget, information that in your attack on clear scientific understanding you feel the need to hide away from the public. 
(H/T to Greenfyre)


CO2 Myths 
MYTH: Climate change is good for plants and crops 
Don’t it make my Green World Brown: 
CO2 and plant growth 
MYTH: Water vapour, not CO2 is driving climate change 
The Big Mist Take 
MYTH: CO2 is not driving climate change 
Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don’t hold your breath…. 
MYTH: The “lag” shows CO2 does not cause climate change 
The “Temp leads Carbon” Crock 
MYTH: Since it is a natural gas CO2 is harmless 
A Natural By-Product of Nature 
Global Cooling Myths 
MYTH: Climate change ended in 1998 aka decade of cooling
Heatwave Edition Part 1
Heatwave Edition Part 2
“1998 Revisited”
Party like it’s 1998 
MYTH: Scientist Mojib Latif predicts decade of a decade of cooling
“Birth of a Climate Crock” 
MYTH: Sea levels are not rising, or not like they said
All Wet on Sea Level rise 
MYTH: 30,000 scientists signed a petition
The great Petition Fraud: 
MYTH: Other planets warming prove it’s the sun
Mars Attacks!! 
MYTH: Weather stations are unreliable
Watts Up With Watts?
The “Urban Heat Island” Crock 
MYTH: They were predicting global cooling in the 1970s
“I Love the 70s!!”: CAUTION: may contain disco music  
MYTH: It’s a natural 1500 year cycle
That 1500 Year Thing 
MYTH: “The Hockey Stick” is broken
Medieval Warming? (& the Hockey Stick) 
MYTH: It’s the Sun &/or Sunspots
Solar Schmolar: Debunking the “It’s the Sun” fable 
MYTH: A cold day in ____ proves climate change isn’t happening
“It’s cold. So there’s no Climate Change”
===========================================================
The original correspondence between Professor Tsonis and myself:


my first email to Prof. Tsonis:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:32 AM:

Dear Professor Anastasios Tsonis,

The internet is all a buzz with a quote that is being credited to you.
"We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped."

Is that an accurate reflection of what you believe?

If it is, may I ask:
Weren't the 2000s the warmest decade on record?

Where does that claim leave the matter of GHGs and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?

What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?


Thank you for your time and hopefully interest
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


Prof. Tsonis reply to my first email:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:51 AM:

Anastasios Tsonis wrote:

Dear Peter 

Yes this my quote. 

As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. "We have reached the top of the mountain", therefore it's not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it!  The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present "the warmest decade" argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).

Regarding the oceans absorbing heat, it is another argument without solid proof. 

Best

Prof. Tsonis

Sent from my iPhone
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

my second email to Prof. Tsonis:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:11 PM:

Dear Professor Tsonis,

Thank you for taking the time to share that interesting information.

Would have a comment regarding this question:

Where does that claim leave the matter of GHGs and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?

Best Wishes,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Prof. Tsonis's reply to my second email:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM:
Anastasios Tsonis wrote:
I don't have a comment on this. It's an open question 

Sent from my iPhone
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

my third email to Prof. Tsonis:
On Sep 16, 2013, at 10:47 AM:

Dear Professor Tsonis,

I've had a few days to think about your reply and am confused.  May I ask your patience and bring up few more questions?

Can you please describe this "new regime in global temperature tendency" you say we have entered?  
What are it's hallmarks?

You say "We have reached the top of the mountain" but that doesn't make sense to me considering trends in ice sheet and glacier melting.  There hasn't been a slow down in melting after the 80s and 90s steep surface temperature rise.  And from a number of studies it seems that increasingly warmer ocean currents are eating away at the bottoms of sheet ice and grounded glaciers.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You say: "Regarding the oceans absorbing heat, it is another argument without solid proof."
But, everything I've been reading about the ARGO float system indicates that initial bugs have been worked out and that it is running well and that the incoming observation data does indeed show ocean warming at various depths.
Do you accept the ARGO results - or are there specific issues that cause you to reject the ARGO data?
Recently I came across this article by John Abraham "Abraham et al. (2013) explore the known unknowns in the oceans and global warming."  It's a summation and I have not read the actual paper - and would problem find myself out of my depth if I tried - but I do trust his summation to honestly reflect what is in the paper itself.  You can find this article at http://www.skepticalscience.com/abraham-2013-known-unknowns.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One last question, it seems that this central issue of Earth's radiative budget/balance and observations deserves more than a "No Comment."  Please, do you have anything more to offer regarding this question?
Where does that (Earth's cooling) claim leave the matter of GHGs and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?

Do you have any thoughts regarding the 2009 paper:
"An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950"

I thank you for your time.
Best Wishes,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Prof. Tsonis reply to my third email:

Anastasios Tsonis, Sep 16, 2013

Dear Peter 

I am dealing with a lot of people all over the world and I try to reply as much as I can. I simply don't have the time to get into an endless conversation. Sorry


Prof. Tsonis 
Sent from my iPhone

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-video-and-lecture-tour-of-our-global.html

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/04/videos-of-scientists-lectures-global.html

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/04/more-videos-what-we-knew-in-1988-plus.html

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/04/more-videos-machinery-of-climate-anti.html

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Miesler

I am not really sure who you are and what is your profession but it seems you have much more time in your hands to deal with all these issues than I do.
You wrote to me and asked me questions. I answered them but obviously you did not understand my replies and asked more questions. I replied to your new request that I cannot continue an exchange of answers and questions for ever. I am dealing with a lot of people and I have a job to attend to. Now if you see this as an evasive action then you need to set back and relax.

All the best

Professor Anastasios Tsonis

citizenschallenge said...

As they say, whatever.

Your public story speaks for itself.

You, Prof. Tsonis, are going out of your way to participate in a maliciously fraudulent line of argument.
An argument intent on misleading the public regarding the genuine state of the science
~ ~ ~.

It doesn't matter who I am - your actions are what matters here.

Steve Bloom said...

It would be informative for you to have a look at Tsonis' own research (with various colleagues) pertinent to the discussion. He argues that he has identified a long-term cycle in the climate system (basically a periodic synching and unsynching of known shorter-term ocean cycles like ENSO) that would mean that we're in a hiatus that will last several decades. After that, there will be a price to pay as the warm part of the cycle combines with the inexorably increasing radiative imbalance to create a sharp warming spike. Then lather, rinse, repeat.

So this is in no sense denialism, quite the contrary, and indeed it probably implies high climate sensitivity, but his quote leaves the impression that it is by neglecting the last bit. (That would be the point for a non-scientist to challenge him on IMO.)

I think what's going on here is that he's quite sure he's right about this but is getting a little bitter about it since (AFAICT) relatively few scientists are in agreement. Seeing other scientists speaking (arguably over-)confidently about a near-term end to the hiatus when there's no means of actually making a prediction of such a thing is rubbing salt in the wound. Possibly there's some specific unhappiness relating to the treatment of his hypothesis in the forthcoming WG1 report.

To add one nuance, Tsonis more or less backed into his hypothesis from a purely theoretical direction (network theory) rather than from (very incomplete, to be fair) observations of how the heat is really moving around the system. If it's the case that the heat has been going into the deep oceans, all else equal a multi-decade hiatus is probably less plausible.

Just to be clear, AFAIK his hypothesis is entirely plausible and has not been shown to be wrong. It's just that the bulk of scientific opinion is that other explanations, generally implying a quicker end to the hiatus, are more likely to be correct.

Note: IANAS, so in case you decide to pursue this further you may want to check all of this with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

citizenschallenge said...

Steve Bloom said...
It would be informative for you to have a look at Tsonis' own research (with various colleagues) pertinent to the discussion. He argues that he has identified a long-term cycle in the climate system (basically a periodic synching and unsynching of known shorter-term ocean cycles like ENSO) that would mean that we're in a hiatus that will last several decades. After that, there will be a price to pay as the warm part of the cycle combines with the inexorably increasing radiative imbalance to create a sharp warming spike. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
~ ~ ~

CC Replies:

This is the beginning of the deception.

Find all the natural cycles you like...
so long as you ignore what greenhouse gases are doing to our atmosphere,
you are being played for a fool!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Steve Bloom said...


So this is in no sense denialism, quite the contrary, and indeed it probably implies high climate sensitivity, but his quote leaves the impression that it is by neglecting the last bit. (That would be the point for a non-scientist to challenge him on IMO.)
~ ~ ~

CC Replies:

Of course, ignoring GHG's geophysical impacts is the exact definition of denialism.

As for the rest of this sentence what are you talking about? Can you explain?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Steve Bloom said...


I think what's going on here is that he's quite sure he's right about this but is getting a little bitter about it since (AFAICT) relatively few scientists are in agreement. Seeing other scientists speaking (arguably over-)confidently about a near-term end to the hiatus when there's no means of actually making a prediction of such a thing is rubbing salt in the wound. Possibly there's some specific unhappiness relating to the treatment of his hypothesis in the forthcoming WG1 report.
~ ~ ~

CC Replies:

Perhaps Tsonis is just evolving into an old crank who has come to believe his own personal ego and bias is superior to a thorough objective examination of the full spectrum of current data?

Simply the fact that Tsonis willfully excludes consideration of what's happening to our atmosphere's insulating properties is a sign of the man's tendency towards misrepresenting the facts.

Thus my charge of "artiste" rather than "scientist"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Steve Bloom said...

To add one nuance, Tsonis more or less backed into his hypothesis from a purely theoretical direction (network theory) rather than from (very incomplete, to be fair) observations of how the heat is really moving around the system. If it's the case that the heat has been going into the deep oceans, all else equal a multi-decade hiatus is probably less plausible.
~ ~ ~

CC Replies:

What are you talking about? ...What is your take-away-message here?

You know what I hear... Professor Tsonis is out of his depth and making bold pronouncements that go light years beyond his knowledge or capabilities.

What Tsonis is championing contradicts Earth observations and geophysical facts of life!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


Steve Bloom said...

Just to be clear, AFAIK his hypothesis is entirely plausible and has not been shown to be wrong. It's just that the bulk of scientific opinion is that other explanations, generally implying a quicker end to the hiatus, are more likely to be correct.
~ ~ ~

CC Replies:

Again, what are you talking about!?

What plausible hypothesis... that there are natural cycles within our oceans -
Great job Watson!

What about the extra layers of insulation being piled on top of our planet's already plenty adequate thermo-mantel against frigid outer-space?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
citizenschallenge said...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Steve Bloom said...

Note: IANAS, so in case you decide to pursue this further you may want to check all of this with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
~ ~ ~

CC Replies:

You want information from people who know what they are talking about?
What about these sources?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2012/sotc-2012-webinar-briefing-slides.pdf

You want me to pursue this further?

Supply some actual articles and links to something interesting -
rather than vaguely pointing at IANAS, without even getting specific about which organization or publication you are referring.

Suspiciously superficial, just like Tsonis evasions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge said...

typos what can I say

;- }

citizenschallenge said...

Incidentally, here's some information that is pertinent to this discussion:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76

Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4–11

Nuccitelli, Abraham, Benestad and Mandia

Abstract: A recent article which has set forth new interpretations of Earth’s recent climate history has included some questions of authentic scientific inquiry, particularly related to the impact of ocean oscillations on atmospheric temperatures. In fact, this very issue is currently being investigated by multiple research groups.

On the other hand, the claim that a two-century linear temperature increase is a recovery from a recent cool period is not supported by the data. Furthermore, this thermal recovery hypothesis is not connected to any physical phenomenon; rather it is a result of a simplistic and incorrect curve-fitting operation.

Other errors in the article are: the claim that the heating of the Earth has halted, misunderstanding of the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the resultant radiative forcing, and a failure to account for forcings other than carbon dioxide (such as other greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols, land use changes, etc.).

Each of these errors brings serious question to the conclusions drawn in the referenced article.

The simultaneous occurrence of all of these errors in a single study guarantees that its conclusions cannot be supported and, in fact, are demonstrably incorrect.