Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming

http://www.astrococktail.com/images/Deconstruction700.jpg

From Globalwarming.org

Yesterday the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Video of Dr. Lindzen’s presentation, “Deconstructing Global Warming,” will be available shortly, but his power point presentation is online now. (see below)

His presentation is both technical and entertaining at the same time.It is well worth your time to read.

Here is the Dr. Lindzen’s preface:

Why do we need to deconstruct global warming? Simply because it has been an issue that has been routinely treated with misinformation and sophistry abetted by constant repetition, institutional endorsements, and widespread ignorance even (perhaps especially) among the educated. Because of the increasingly dangerous and expensive approaches being promoted to deal with this alleged problem, it is, I think, important to understand what is being said as well as to understand how climate actually works.
I will begin with a few items that illustrate how this issue has been manipulated, and how, to a great extent, global warming has been merely a device for implementing broader agendas. I will then continue with an emphasis on the science.

From the 1970’s, there was a general feeling that ‘climate change’ would be an excellent vehicle for a variety of agendas. People openly espousing this included Bert Bolin, who was an adviser to the Swedish prime minister, and later the first head of the IPCC.
Once the global issue emerged on the public scene, two cooperating institutions were formed in the 1990’s with interlocking leadership: The Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The latter is headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and the former by Michael Hulme. These institutions epitomize the exploitation of the climate issue. Their members constitute numerous participants in the IPCC.

Recently, Hulme came out with an interesting book.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/images/climate.2009.102-i6.jpg

 

Read Dr. Lindzen’s entire presentation here (PDF)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presentations. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming

  1. Eduardo Ferreyra says:

    Nothing much to say, but I am glad to be the first to comment. Lindzen is great and he’s puncturing a big hole in AGW hot air baloon.

  2. Klimate Kip says:

    Someone PLEASE tell me this presentation (and its further dissemination) is going to have SOME kind of positive, logical, real, and measurable impact on the SCIENCE and meteorology community at large!

    I’m literally going to make cardstock copies of this, spiral bind them and hand them out like a passionate religious zealot to all my “science is settled” warming friends!

    Is there no balm in Gilead? LOL…

  3. Gregg E. says:

    Here’s the latest broadside from the cult of AGW.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

    Have at it.

  4. APE says:

    Slam dunk for Lindzen! Of course there was a foul due to roughing on the play so AGW will get two free throws…

    I am always amazed by those who think the climate has positive feedback and is inherently unstable. It is amazing that the earth exhibits such tenacious stability year after year. BTW sure is cold tonight must be getting close to Halloween.

  5. Jeff B. says:

    Hansen et. al. have no clothes.

  6. anna v says:

    I read the presentation.

    I hope the answer “where to we go from here” is, publish the low sensitivity.
    This should be important in convincing honest scientist AGWmers that they are on the wrong track, that the models should be scrapped and rethought from initial assumptions.

    Then the east and west coast intelligencia will be left without scientist support for its delusions.

  7. Patrick Davis says:

    OT, related to another thread at WUWT…

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/21/asa_climate_probe/

    They appear to have launched an investigation into that TV propaganda ad recently reported here.

  8. Eddie Murphy says:

    Here is a den of AGW propaganda that reaches a whole lot of people.

    http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/Page&c=Channel&cid=1104779630493&flash=noflash

    Particularly Thom Hartmann and Mike Malloy who lay it on thick. Many are on terrestrial radio. Thom Hartmann (Air America) impresses people as being smart (applied to MENSA but couldn’t pass the test) and pushes the AGW theme really hard. Go to his site and check him out, listen to his podcasts/archives… he needs to hear more from the sane side! I send them items every day, help me out and do the same, folks. If Morano can get on his show I’m sure Anthony Watts, Leif and Joe D’Aleo could. We need you!

  9. FatBigot says:

    It is very easy to overstate the case on both sides of this argument. No doubt most regular commenters here are of the view that the warmists overstate their case by claiming that things are certain when they are subject to serious rational dispute. Equally, we heretics are too often guilty of certainty in our criticisms of the warmists’ position.

    Professor Lindzen is always careful not to overstate his position. I cannot claim to speak for him but my understanding is that he does not dismiss the alarmist case as having no conceivable merit, rather he asserts that the methods used to reach that case have serious flaws and that the factual evidence emerging since the case was made tend to contradict rather than support it.

    Scientists who advocate a position are more likely to garner headlines than those who simply put forward a hypothesis for consideration and expose their methodology and supporting data for others to analyse. I know who I would trust more.

  10. Ron House says:

    I have blogged about the psychology of Hulme’s comments and the defacto religious nature of them here.

  11. Nonoy Oplas says:

    Anthony, I hope this is ok with you and Dr. Lindzen if we will post this pdf in our website, the links will be directed in this WUWT link?

    REPLY: perfectly fine, Anthony

  12. Dr. Gerhard Loebert says:

    The True Cause of the Multi-Decadal Climate Change Cycles

    After three decades of continual increase, the mean Earth temperature has been decreasing steadily since 2002, as precise satellite measurements show. As a result, the steady rise in sea level has stopped since 2005.

    World climate is a regular quasi-periodic phenomenon (see Fig. 2.1 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm ) that is driven by solar activity with a period of 75 – 85 years (Gleissberg cycle). Because of this regularity, it can be stated with absolute certainty that the mean Earth temperature will continue to decrease until 2040.

    1. There exists an extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth – two physically unrelated geophysical quantities – (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, and leaves little room for a human influence on climate. Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years. This close correlation results from the action of an hitherto unknown form of gravitational waves, galactic vacuum density waves, on the Sun and on the Earth (see http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf ).

    2. The orbital periods of all Solar System planets are very close to integer multiples and integer fractions of the periods of the Hale (22.14 years) and the Gleissberg (84 years) solar cycles. (See the posts of September 26, 2009 and October 6, 2009 in http://www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam ). This provides further evidence for the existence of super-Einsteinian gravitational waves and of their action on all celestial bodies of the Solar System.

    Progress in climatological science can only be achieved if the above physical facts are looked into in full depth.

    It took the world community of reputed geophysicists FIFTY YEARS to accept Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift. Seaon Theory, the new gravitational theory that explains global climate change (which theory is described in the post of September 19, 2008 in http://www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam ), is presently at the beginning of a similar worldwide mental process.

    Ref.: a) The posts of September 19, 2008 September 26, 2009, October 6, 2009, and October 23, 2009 in http://www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam
    b) http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf

  13. Rob Vermeulen says:

    About the pdf file:

    Lindzen ends up showing there is a negative feedback between reflected sunlight and sea surface temperatures. I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback. The variaiton of reflected sunlight is indeed itself inversely related to the amount of power absorbed by the oceans. The more the oeceans absorb sunlight, the less sunlight will be reflected. Then of course oceans are coupled to the rest of the planetary system, i.e. the block diagram shown is not complete. They reemit heat at a longer time scale and at different wavelengths (typically the IRs). So what’s the point exactly? Is he trying to show that oceans will absorb excess sunlight forever without ever releasing it?

  14. Gene Nemetz says:

    The Foreign Secretary accused the public yesterday of lacking a sense of urgency in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change. David Miliband said that people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to be galvanized into action before the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.
    –Hannah Devlin, The Times, 23 October 2009

    Make me laugh!

  15. Gregg E. says:

    New or new-ish theories are such fun, eh?

    Is *anyone* including the variation in Earth’s axial tilt in any climate models and calculations?

  16. Phillip Bratby says:

    Re Patrick Davies @ 22:46:10

    The response from the ASA to complainants so far is as follows. It will be interesring to see the evidence provided by DECC :

    “Dear Sir/Madam,

    YOUR COMPLAINT: ACT ON CO2 TV AND PRESS ADS

    We have considered your complaint and will take it up with the advertisers, the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

    We intend to deal with your complaint under our formal investigations procedure, which means that we will ask Clearcast (the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre) and the Department for Energy and Climate Change to comment on the complaint and send evidence to support the claims. We will then refer your complaint to the ASA Council for adjudication. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.

    We have received complaints about advertising in the campaign that covers both broadcast and non-broadcast media. The different media are considered by separate Councils, but all the ads will be investigated together. This means that the investigation may take a little longer than usual but ensures that the decisions reflect all the available information and are appropriate to the media.

    We will be investigating the following points (please note the order differs slightly from the list posted on our website last week) -

    Complainants objected to the TV ad because they believed:

    1. the ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast;

    2. the theme and content of the ad, for example the dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could be distressing for children who saw it;

    3. the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television;

    4. the ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, when there was a significant division amongst the scientific community on that point;

    5. the claim “over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things” was misleading;

    6. the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading;

    7. the claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding, and associated imagery in the ad, in the UK were exaggerated, distressing and misleading;

    Some complainants objected to the press ad on the grounds of (4) and (7) above and we will also be investigating those complaints.

    Points (1) and (4) in relation to the TV ad may be subject to Section 4 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code, which is administered by Ofcom. We will therefore be referring to Ofcom objections to the TV campaign raised in respect of “political” objectives. Ofcom will in due course be publishing a Finding of its determination. When both bodies have concluded their investigations we plan to notify complainants of both our and Ofcom’s decisions, and we will write to you again at that point.

    Please treat all correspondence as confidential until such time as a decision is published on our website.

    Due to the postal strike and the particularly large volume of complaints received, we regret that we have been unable to send personally addressed correspondence on this occasion.

    Yours sincerely

    Jenny Alexander
    Investigations Executive

  17. Phlogiston says:

    When we talk about feedback we need to first establish whether the system we are looking at is at equilibrium and shows linear behaviour, or if it is far from equilibrium and exhibits non-linear non-equilibrium behaviour and pattern formation. It make a very important difference concerning what the effects and significance of negative and positive feedbacks are.

    Feedbacks are at the centre of the debates about climate dynamics and so-called “forcings”. A chaotic nonlinear paradigm results in predicted outcomes that are diametrically, 180 degrees, opposed to the predictions of a linear reductionistic-mechanistic paradigm.

    What is the difference between the “linear reductionist-mechanistic (LRM) and the chaotic non-linear (CN) paradigms?

    Negative feedbacks, in the LRM paradigm, basically oppose any force causing a change with a force reversing the change, so that status quo returns. Anti AGW scientists and commentators like negative feedbacks since they can be expected to oppose AGW.

    Positive feedbacks on the other hand, in the LRM paradigm, result in runaway self-reinforcing change, and are thus popular with the AGW proponents. In fact the basis of the AGW position is arguing how a small CO2 forcing can initiate positive feedbacks with the help of water vapour and other factors.

    The CN paradigm is quite different. Here, negative feedback is given another name: friction (or sometimes “damping” or “dissipation”). Friction is when a forced change sets in motion processes which act to oppose the change. And in non-linear, non-equilibrium dynamic systems, friction has one major outcome: it stimulates the emergence of pattern formation. A system becomes fruitful with rich emergent patterns within its phase space when it is far from equilibrium and in the bifurcating non-linear regime and friction is present in the system.

    The literature is replete with experimental studies substantiating this thoroughly well-established theory. (“friction + pattern + formation + non-linear” in Google scholar just yielded 15500 hits). Examples of such systems include:

    The classic Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction,
    Rayleigh-Benaud convection,
    Catalysed CO oxidation on a Pt surface,
    Coastline formation by sea currents on sand,
    The formation of pattern in mammalian trabecular bone,

    And many more. So while negative feedback causes a simple return to status quo (whatever that is) in the LMR paradigm, negative feedback or friction causes the emergence of pattern and structure in the CN paradigm.

    What about positive feedback?

    In teh CN paradigm, positive feedback kills emergent pattern. Feedbacks have to be suppressed in order for rich and complex patterns to emerge. The Pt-catalysed oxidation of CO, studied by Matthias Bertram and others shows this clearly [2]. The system generates rich and complex geometric spatial patterns, but these collapse into a set of uniform sinusoidal oscillations when the gas pressures are adjusted to increase feedback in the system. Another, biomedical study
    shows that in the biochemical regulation of bone turnover, inactivation of the gene for OPG which acts against osteoblast-osteoclast coupling (feedback by yet another name) results in a debilitating genetic bone disorder where complex trabecular bone pattern collapses into an abnormal and pathological series of parallel plates [3].

    So while in the LRM paradigm positive feedback is what produces unidirectional sustained change, in the CN paradigm, it reduces complex and pattern-rich structure into simple periodic structure. So it actually opposes sustained change.

    Oscillations by the way are the norm for a planetary ocean and atmosphere system such as ours which is under continuous periodic forcing from the Milankovitch, solar and other cycles, and which in response – as a dynamically chaotic / non-linear system – generates intrinsic oscillations of its own. The type of feedbacks in the system determine the nature of the oscillations. Negative feedbacks (friction or damping) result in complex pattern with for instance log-log power law scales of magnitude. Positive feedback, by contrast, reduces oscillation to a simple wave.

    That’s what I mean about the outcomes of feedback being opposite according to the LGM and CN paradigms respectively. According to the CN paradigm, the AGW camp needs therefore to be arguing for negative, not positive feedback.

    If you want to see a nice video of emergent pattern in a non-equilibrium system under periodic forcing, please go to:

    http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/research/vibrated_cornstarch.htm

    and click on the link for “see a movie”.

    Note that by emergent structure in the climate context one can include things like ice ages, El Nino and La Nina ocean current events, Pacific and Atlantic and other oceanic oscillations, the MWP, the LIA, the CWP, and others. Richard Lindzen points out [1] that negative feedbacks are generally underestimated, since systems will try to return to equilibrium via negative feedbacks. Basic thermodynamics dictates that applied forces induce opposing forces.

    Thus complexity and rich emergent pattern can be expected as the order of the day.

    [1] Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, Geophysical Research Letters, July 14, 2009.

    [2] Bertram M et al. Pattern formation on the edge of chaos: Experiments with CO oxidation on a Pt(110) surface under global delayed feedback. Phys. Rev. E 67(3) 036208 (2003)

    [3] Salmon PL. Loss of Chaotic Trabecular Structure in OPG-Deficient Juvenile Pagets Disease Patients Indicates a Chaogenic Role for OPG in Nonlinear Pattern Formation of Trabecular Bone. J. Bone Miner. Res., 2004; 19 (5): 695-702.

  18. Roger Knights says:

    I couldn’t read the supposed PDF at the “here” link (I have a Mac); I had to access a differently named file via the other link provided, globalwarming.org. And that 49-page collection of powerpoint slides is too voluminous to print out. I hope there will be a more compact version somewhere.

  19. Rhys Jaggar says:

    1. Isn’t it about time that the ‘sensibilities of the educated classes of the East Coast’ were affronted sufficiently regularly for policy makers to be comfortable doing so?
    2. Isn’t it about time that scientists applying for Govt grants sign a waiver form that their applications contain no statements which are ‘deliberately misleading, distorting or generally interpret data in a political- rather than a scientific manner’? Roll up, roll up, climatologists…..
    3. Will the enlightened policy makers please go study how it was that Al Capone was finally brought to book (I think you’ll find that he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge but was still put away….)?
    4. Will the stock market investors stick to real investments like alternative energy (that ugly evil monster ExxonMobil has, horror of horrors, been doing cost-effectiveness research on the use of algae to generate novel power sources…..), solar panel technology or sustainable construction material technology please?
    5. And will Joe Public vote for folks who have scientific qualifications a bit more often please??

  20. peeke says:

    @Rob vermeulen

    Could feedback mechanisms possibly look like this?

    The more the oceans absorb sunlight the higher the SST, and the higher the SST the more cloudformation since higher temperatures lead to more vaporization. The more cloud formation the higher the albedo, hence the *less* oceans absorb sunlight.

  21. BernieL says:

    Anthony, I wonder could you make Lindzen’s case against positive feedback the direct subject of a blog presentation that displays its significance clearly and simply to the non-specialist reader. This would be a handy resource for rapid circulation.

  22. Alan the Brit says:

    Phillip Bratby (00:42:08) :
    Got mine too, but I was going to keep it confidential as reqested until a decision had been made. Oh well, never mind! Perhaps it’s good to expose this now after all! They wouldn’t know about this site anyhow.

  23. John Barrett says:

    In the “news story” linked by Gregg E (22:09) there is a quote :

    “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

    I am stunned into disbelieving silence. Who is this guy ?

  24. Sandy says:

    ” I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback. ”
    Positive feedback means that a small deviation from equilibrium causes more deviation and no return to equilibrium. One can balance a broom upright on its handle, but the slightest knock and it’s over.
    If there was a single significant positive feedback system in the whole climate system then it would have activated by now.
    So anyone who talks about positive feedbacks in the overall climate system is either pig-ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
    One example of positive feedback in meteorology occurs when a thermal breaks through the inversion layer (where temp rises with height for a while). The air above is usually unstable which means that the temp drops quicker with height than the normal expansion of rising air. Thus for a few 10,000s of feet increasing height makes rising air even warmer than the air around it making it rise even faster, which is textbook positive feedback. Eventually the cumulo-nimbus cloud produced hits the stratosphere where temp rises with height which eventually brakes the rising air giving the mound seen above the anvil.
    The Iceball Earth episodes may appear to be positive feedback, BUT the climate recovered even from that.
    The idea of ‘positive feedback’ from the human-produced 10ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere should appear farcical to any reasonably rational person.

  25. Bulldust says:

    Phillip Bratby (00:42:08) :

    I assume “in due course” coincides with the end of the Copenhagen love in?

    Had this been a sexually or other wise unacceptable commercial it would have been yanked within a week or day… but you get the political BS run around.

    O_o you are in trouble, because this correspondence was to be treated as confidential… what’s the betting they go after you instead of the Government?

  26. P Wilson says:

    Patrick Davis (22:43:33)

    There are a few caveats in that article – even as to question whether there is a tipping point for the Arctic, or whether the temperature is going to increase, and even whether the Arctic sea responds uniformly to climate change.

    elsewhere on their site, they make an awful lot of uncertainties, more so than what they think is certain.

    Despite what we hear, there is a lot of world class talent in the Met Office.

    Anyway a special thanks to Dr Lindzen

  27. peeke says:

    O, my bad. SW reflection actually lowers when SST hightens.

  28. Nonoy Oplas says:

    Dr. Lindzen’s paper is now uploaded in our website, http://www.minimalgovernment.net. My 2 papers on AGW and Global cooling are also posted there. Many of the charts that I showed in my 2 papers are taken from WUWT, source properly quoted and cited. The charts are very useful in mesmerizing my audience, some of whom would otherwise insist that AGW is correct. Keep up the good work!

  29. Terryskinner says:

    I love this part of the presentation:

    “THE ARCTIC OCEAN IS WARMING UP, ICEBERGS ARE GROWING SCARCER AND IN SOME PLACES THE SEALS ARE FINDING THE WATER TOO HOT. REPORTS ALL POINT TO A RADICAL CHANGE IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF TEMPERATURES IN THE ARCTIC ZONE. EXPEDITIONS REPORT THAT SCARCELY ANY ICE HAS BEEN MET WITH AS FAR NORTH AS 81 DEGREES 29 MINUTES. GREAT MASSES OF ICE HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MORAINES OF EARTH AND STONES, WHILE AT MANY POINTS WELL KNOWN GLACIERS HAVE ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED.”

    —US WEATHER BUREAU, 1922

    Looks like the Arctic will be ice free by 1930.

  30. 4 billion says:

    Sandy (02:57:28) :

    “The idea of ‘positive feedback’ from the human-produced 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere should appear farcical to any reasonably rational person.”
    —————————————————————–
    Atmospheric water vapour increased since 1988, cannot this be seen as evidence of feedback starting to occur?

    “Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager
    (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over
    oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results
    from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of
    this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

  31. dorlomin says:

    John Barrett (02:52:06) :

    In the “news story” linked by Gregg E (22:09) there is a quote :

    “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

    I am stunned into disbelieving silence. Who is this guy ?
    ————————————————-

    The main source for the chapter on climate change in the new book superfreakanomics.

    :) glad to help.

  32. paulhan says:

    Wow, unless he can be caught out on the calculations somehow, that report looks pretty damning for the AGW cause, particularly considering that this is observed data, not modelled. And so simple, even I can understand it, energy of light in – energy of heat out = what is retained (trapped).

  33. twawki says:

    Were starting to get some media play here in Australia – interviews with Monckton on the radio, Lindzen mentione din the interview, opinion articles in the mainline press. Have linked all here;

    http://twawki.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/one-faith-to-rule-them-all/

  34. isotopious says:

    What’s more scary?

    1) Global warming

    or

    2) You are a monkey and you live on a planet.

    or

    3) You are a monkey and you live on a planet with other monkeys

    2 + 3 are far too scary, so the educated classes choose 1

  35. Patrick Davis says:

    “Phillip Bratby (00:42:08) : ”

    Phillip, that appears to be a standard response from the ASA I’ve seen in other bloggers posts, but the volume of complaints seem to have caught their ear.

  36. Tom in Florida says:

    anna v (22:42:48) : “Then the east and west coast intelligencia will be left without scientist support for its delusions.”

    That never stopped them before.

    Rob Vermeulen (00:31:19) : ” I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback…”

    It seems to me that Dr Lindzen was demonstrating that the models do not match real world results and are therefore not an acceptable basis for a theory yet that theory is treated as proven fact.

  37. Dave Morgan says:

    4 billion (03:55:40) :

    “The idea of ‘positive feedback’ from the human-produced 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere should appear farcical to any reasonably rational person.”

    I think sandy was correct 10 ppm man made co2 3% of co2 not 30% 100ppm

  38. Steve Keohane says:

    Sandy (02:57:28) : “The idea of ‘positive feedback’ from the human-produced 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere should appear farcical to any reasonably rational person.”
    4 billion (03:55:40) : Atmospheric water vapour increased since 1988, cannot this be seen as evidence of feedback starting to occur?

    Atmospheric water content has been going down for at least 60 years:
    http://i38.tinypic.com/30bedtg.jpg

  39. Rob Vermeulen says:

    peeke: there MIGHT be such a form of feedback, but we actually haave no idea, do we? At least, Lindzen shows no sign of such type of regulation neither does he even mention it.
    Sandy: I beg to differ on this one. The effects of a positive feedback can only be observed typiically after some treshlod has been exceeded.

  40. Bernie says:

    Many thanks for posting this. I look forward to seeing him in the video.

    I heard him not too long ago on the Howie Carr Show here in Boston. The nice thing about Lindzen is that he has a great sense of humor which is an enormously pleasant change from the dour humorlessness of the hand wringing, sanctimonious, left liberal chicken littles that seem to gather in large numbers on the East and West Coasts.

  41. Curiousgeorge says:

    In the general public’s mind this whole thing has degenerated into a playground shoving match: “Yes it is, No it isn’t, ………”

    The problem is that such shoving matches tend to evolve into gang fights with guns, knives, etc.

    I fully expect to see the argument turn violent in the not too distant future, and not just between individuals, but between and within countries. The politically powerful alarmists (not the man on the street alarmist), as evidenced by their commitment to use climate for political agendas, will not “go quietly into the night”. They are far too invested in their political goals to give up now.

    They WILL force the issue.

    The only question is the level of commitment to the fight by those who value freedom.

    The most committed will win.

  42. Sandy says:

    4 billion
    ” Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of
    this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone”

    Where to start?
    Climate noise is an unknown quantity since we can’t even measure global temperature now merely concentrating on convenient continents and ignoring the rest.
    The assumption that the result is significant relies on the idea that their model is right (because they understand ALL the interactions in our real system).
    So the facts are they made an incompetent model that doesn’t fit observations, then dressed it in faulty logic.
    They call themselves ‘scientists’ but I have higher standards and these people are an insult to real seekers of Nature’s Truths, like Leif says ;).

  43. Smokey says:

    dorlomin (04:00:50),

    I was going to buy Superfreakonomics yesterday, but in scanning it in the bookstore I noticed the author claims that CO2 persistence in the atmosphere is on the order of a century.

    This is completely wrong, as was proved by carbon isotopes tracked following the above ground nuclear tests in the 1950′s. The actual persistence is less than 10 years. Only the IPCC claims extraordinary CO2 persistence, [and as we know the IPCC is composed entirely of political appointees].

    The lower CO2 residence time indicates negative feedback, and falsifies another AGW claim. If the IPCC is so off-base regarding a basic tenet of AGW, how can anyone believe they are credible? No peer reviewed paper comes anywhere close to the IPCC’s outlandish and unsupportable claims.

    So I didn’t buy the book after all. But I did notice that the author took a skeptical position regarding AGW despite the CO2 persistence error. My question now is: why don’t you regard the IPCC skeptically? They have been shown to be in error in every assessment report.

    The IPCC is completely wrong regarding their claim of a high climate sensitivity number. As Prof Lindzen concludes, the climate sensitivity is about 0.5. That is a very un-alarming number because it indicates that there is nothing to worry about. With a sensitivity of only 0.5, runaway global warming is impossible because the climate has very little sensitivity to CO2.

    That being the case, there are much more pressing needs for the $Trillions proposed to be spent on the AGW non-problem. Scientists in every other field should be demanding that AGW studies and mitigation must be de-funded, and the savings put into areas that produce actual benefits.

  44. hunter says:

    The quotes from Hulme are rather illuminating.
    For him, truth and honesty are road bumps on the way to climate utopia.

  45. wws says:

    For Rob Vermuelen, who wrote:

    “I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback.”

    Others have answered this question more technically, but let me put it in terms that make sense to me and which I think make the point easily comprehensible.

    All of the claims of catastrophic climate damage are dependant on positive feedback happening throughout the climate system. Any part of this which actually operates with negative feedback will act as a damper on the entire system, thus invalidating the “tipping point” hypothesis. It isn’t necessary to prove that all of the feedback is negative; Lindzen simply needs to prove that a significant amount of the feedback is negative and he’s destroyed the alarmist’s case.

    A previous poster used friction as an example of negative feedback; think “brakes”. If the system has automatic brakes, then there’s no need to worry about it turning into a runaway train.

    Common sense alone would tell us this is the case – if the earth didn’t have significant negative feedback systems which function to always return it to a stable mean, it would have reached any theoretical “tipping point” long ago. On that topic, it does look like the Earth has reached a global cooling “tipping point” several times within the last 4 million years, but never a warming one.

  46. supercritical says:

    I am bothered by the Anthropic explanation given for the measured steady increase in atmospheric CO2. I am also concerned that the argument for AGW hangs on the idea that the ‘lifetime’ of added CO2 in the atmosphere, is very long. If it were found to be shorter, then the AGW explanation is in trouble.

    So

    4 billion (03:55:40) :

    Your comment

    “Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager
    (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over
    oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988 ” interested me.

    As I understand it there is a tremendous interaction of CO2 coming in and out of solution with the cycling between the temperatures and phases that atmospheric H20 undergoes. And, I wonder whether this measured increase in atmospheric H20 co-relates in some way with the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 that we see.

    Then as we know there is an annual cycle to be seen in the CO2 measurements, and we are told that this reflects the plant growth cycle. But as we knbow plants , when the growing season stoipis, don’t just decompose within weeks to re-release their sequestered Co2 straight into the atmosphere. So is there another explanation that this cycling could really be a function of changes in summer/winter atmospheric H20?

    Then the idea that the ratio of C isotopes in the atmosphere will give an anthropic signature, could be complicated by the many cycles of absorbtion/release of CO2 by atmospheric H20 giving a kind of distillation effect favouring the accumulation of the lighter isotopes?

  47. rbateman says:

    Gregg E. (22:09:04) :
    Here’s the latest broadside from the cult of AGW.

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20091026%2Fap_on_sc%2Fus_sci_global_cooling

    Have at it.

    Your wish is my command.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
    Whether the goose if frozen or fried, it makes no difference, if it is already dead. Problem is, both are still alive.
    The thing works both ways. If the skeptical take is wrong, warmist selection is perilous, for it’s the latter that seek global alteration, not the skeptic. That’s the problem. The Earth was warming, and now is cooling, and it’s not precisely known why. This isn’t the 1st time the guess was wrong. It was wrong in the 70′s, and was caught looking then, too.
    i.e. – until we know how the climate works, predicting it is fraught with error. There is a catch, however.
    Copenhagen need do nothing more than flip a coin and prepare for the coming consequences of a warming or cooling Earth. They have an equally good chance of getting it right or wrong. They will either succeed in saving the Planet (if it is even in danger), or destroying it if it is not. Except for, perhaps, Murphy’s Law, and the frightful price they are willing to exact to force mass redistribution plus endangerment of political and military power balances. The coin at Copenhagen, however has two tails, and the odds of getting it right are now 25%.

    Here’s the thing:

    The world is little different today than it was 2000 years ago. Given an opportunity, what self-respecting power would not jump at the chance to seize the reins of the world while thier opponents shoot themselves in both feet and blow off both kneecaps In Search of Utopian Fantasy?
    This is what tips the balance of outcome at Copenhagen. No matter the ecological outcome, the fall of the West is almost guaranteed, should they suceed in implementing both economic and political change concurrently.
    Into the vacuum pours chaos.
    20,000 delusionals meet across the sea.

    And that is why 2 wrongs don’t make a right. It’s wrong to gamble at massive alteration of whole civilizations, and it’s wrong to do it blindfolded.
    History teaches us that adaptation is the best thing humans have going for them. I see no reason to abandon it in favor of outright hysteria.

  48. Jim Clarke says:

    The IPCC’s argument that ‘we can’t explain the warming of the late 20th century any other way’ is similar to reasoning that brought about Greek and Roman mythology. The ancients created gods to explain the changing weather and climate that they could not explain any other way. Both the AGW argument and the ancient gods were created from ignorance, but only the AGW argument was created from willful ignorance.

    Natural pattern recognition in climate change is a theory that fits the available data at all time scales, not just the late 20th century (like the CO2 argument). Not only is ‘natural pattern recognition’ a different explanation for most of the warming of the late 20th century, but it is a much more robust explanation. It is taking a tremendous effort by the mainstream science authorities to ignore it.

    All of this reminds me of the pop band Devo. From Wiki: “The name “Devo” comes “from their concept of ‘de-evolution’ – the idea that instead of evolving, mankind has actually regressed, as evidenced by the dysfunction and herd mentality of American society.” (Substitute ‘science’ for ‘American society’.)

    Then whip it! Whip it good!

  49. Jeremy says:

    What a Faustian bargain Susan Hockfield, President of MIT, has made. In the past I have watched her get up on stage with Immelt, Head of GE, and discuss clean energy. Now she has chosen to completely ignore her own eminent MIT climate expert and instead to tell outright lies ostensibly in order to share the stage with the President of the United States.

    Science has become completely subservient to political will and the greedy corrupt business of seeking grants and power.

    A very very sad day for MIT. I feel so sorry for Susan, who at some point made the Faustian Bargain to agree to tell lies (ignoring established Science and Fact) in order to seek power for herself and no doubts with a noble cause in mind: more funding for MIT.

    I am so very very glad I went to an eminent Canadian University to study Engineering Physics (including atmospheric physics) and did not go to MIT. This supression of science and fact in order to achieve political agendas and generate funding is very simply, white collar corruption.

  50. Lulo says:

    COMPLETE AND UNDENIABLE DISPROOF (AND REVERSAL) OF THE CLOUD-ALBEDO FEEDBACK TO INCREASING TEMPERATURE, WHICH DRIVES MOST OF THE AGW IN ALL CLIMATE MODELS !!!

    END OF DEBATE.

    THE BIGGEST PR DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

  51. Kevin Kilty says:

    Beyond serving various political agendas, AGW feeds the neuroses of our elites–mostly of the left persuasion. Reason and evidence will never squash it. It is simply too useful.

  52. Ed Scott says:

    The imposition of Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill.

    Tired of Algore? Take this 30 minute detour into scientific ignorance as presented by John “Swifty” Kerry, who served in Viet Nam.

    This is political comedy.
    ————————————————————-
    Kerry’s 30 Minute Opening Statement On Kerry-Boxer Bill

  53. timetochooseagain says:

    I am pleased to see that Lindzen is adding the CERES data to his analysis. I have been wondering how the newer data would fit in.

  54. Ed Scott says:

    A brief summary of the delusional science of AGW.
    ————————————————————-
    The real climate change catastrophe

    In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

    By Christopher Booker

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html

    In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

    Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves.

    Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.

    How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?

  55. Rob Vermeulen says:

    wws: the problem is that it is well known in dynamical theory that negative feedbacks, when coupled to positive feedbacks, can lead to instabilities as well. The result is then typically multistability. Moreover, the results shwon show no indication about the ammplitude of this “negative” feedback so there’s really no proof whatsoever that it will settle every instability.

  56. Tim Huck says:

    I’m going to make a climate change prediction. I predict that the reported 2009 arctic sea ice extent will cross below the 2007 line right before Copenhagen. I further predict that this will be reported world wide as proof that action is needed. It will turn out to be a bug.

    When someone predicts the ‘doom of mankind’ and doesn’t show you the data, you should treat them with skepticism.

  57. Pascvaks says:

    When the Lemmings are running there’s no stopping them. Best to stand on a rock, out of their way, and watch –if you can– until only you and the timid remain. We are wrong if we think we are smarter than Lemmings. Stupidity is a genetic trait, a dominant trait.

  58. Sandy says:

    “Moreover, the results shwon show no indication about the ammplitude of this “negative” feedback so there’s really no proof whatsoever that it will settle every instability.”
    Apart from the fact that in the last billion years the climate has survived global glaciation, asteroid strikes and flood basalt events.
    So there really is no proof that the climate is anything but robustly stable.

  59. philincalifornia says:

    Ed Scott (07:38:36) :
    The imposition of Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill.
    ——————————–

    There was a particularly ridiculous article in the Washington Post on this, describing how Kerry, who is a bigger scientific simpleton than Al Gore (and that takes some doing), destroyed Inhofe with his science.

    I posted a zinger of a response, relating to the Briffa and Steig papers and even sent a link on the pine beetle situation, to pass on to Kerry:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m10d22-Pine-beetles-as-a-harbinger-of-manmade-climate-change-destruction

    Most of the comments are from climate realists, and the opposing responses seem to mostly be comprised of individuals arguing that skeptics are Republicans.

    My comments were censored, although they were up for a while. That’s the first time I’ve ever been censored in my life (other than when Charles the moderator busted me for bad language on here !!).

  60. AlanG says:

    Moderator, please snip the email address and phone number at Phillip Bratby (00:42:08). The author doesn’t deserve to get bombarded by spam and junk calls.

    Anyway, it’s breach of copyright or something. The letter clearly states “Please treat all correspondence as confidential until such time as a decision is published on our website”

    [Done. ~dbs, mod.]

  61. MartinGAtkins says:

    isotopious (04:28:59) :

    What’s more scary?
    1) Global warming
    or
    2) You are a monkey and you live on a planet.
    or
    3) You are a monkey and you live on a planet with other monkeys

    None.

    1. Has no time scale and so has no conclusion.
    2. Is wrong, we are Primates.
    3. Is premised with an error, so the statement is a grammatical nonsense.

  62. Jimmy Haigh says:

    We can not let them get away with calling it ‘climate change’. What it is all about is an increase in atmospheric CO2, from man’s burning of fossil fuels, is causing runaway global warming. Pure and simple.

  63. Pressed Rat says:

    Pascvaks
    - As demonstrated by your post.

  64. hunter says:

    Jimmy Haigh,
    Historians will look at the lack of thinking involved with letting the fear mongers get away with changing the name from global warming to climate change, and still maintain their credibility, as one important indicator of how effective the fear mongers have been.

  65. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Sandy (08:21:40) :

    “Apart from the fact that in the last billion years the climate has survived global glaciation, asteroid strikes and flood basalt events.
    So there really is no proof that the climate is anything but robustly stable.”

    All good robust points Sandy.

    Lord Monckton made a good point in his speech the other day about the fact that the atmosphere only adds about 30F to the temperature of the earth. In other words, had the earth just been a lump of rock at this distance from the sun, its average temperature would be about 40F. Does anyone have a link to the source of this info? (Of course, it would have to be peer reviewed…)

  66. hunter says:

    MartinGAtkins,
    You are likely suffering the after effects of a humorectomy.

  67. Pascvaks says:

    Pressed Rat (08:48:32) :

    Pascvaks
    - As demonstrated by your post.
    _________________________

    So true!

  68. Sam the Skeptic says:

    Sandy (02:57:28) :
    Atmospheric water vapour increased since 1988, cannot this be seen as evidence of feedback starting to occur?

    Steve Keohane (05:28:34) :
    Atmospheric water content has been going down for at least 60 years

    Now, gentlemen, either you are arguing at cross-purposes or one of you is wrong. Which is it to be?

  69. Alan S. Blue says:

    ” Rob Vermeulen (08:03:16) :
    the problem is that it is well known in dynamical theory that negative feedbacks, when coupled to positive feedbacks, can lead to instabilities as well.”

    Point to the positive feedback. The one that is certainly present is quite small and well bounded.

    The shortform simplification of AGW is:
    1) An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a quite small direct net retention in heat. This warming – in itself – isn’t directly relevant. (We can calculate the direct greenhouse effects directly, and even an overwhelming amount of carbon dioxide isn’t exciting directly. But…
    2) The fact that the atmosphere is slightly warmer means there is more water vapor due to equilibrium with the oceans.
    3) More water vapor means more clouds.
    4) Clouds act as a strong radiation blanket causing more warming.
    5) Return to #2 – with amplification. Strong amplification.

    Looking at the well understood #1, there is a hefty chunk of unexplained warming remaining. There’s only one other spot to assign the apparent warming to in this model. So when you -fit- this model, you calculate a strong positive feedback from cloud cover.

    What Lindzen is saying is: When one actually puts satellites up and observe step four directly, as opposed to via models – one finds that step four should read “4) Clouds insulate the ground from the incoming radiation better than they retain the existing heat. Thus they cause a net cooling.”

    More CO2 -> More heat -> More Clouds -> More cooling isn’t a runaway feedback loop. Well, unless the first step is wrong. But we have the physical chemistry for that step pretty well nailed down. The entire reason we were looking for a positive feedback loop in the first place was that the quite solid science of the “More CO2 -> More Heat” steps was dramatically failing to answer why, precisely, we were getting more heating than that.

    This fundamental parameter “How much warming does an increase in cloud cover cause?” is one of the inputs in the circulation models.

  70. Vincent says:

    Pholigiston,

    Good post on the differences between Chaos and Linear. I would like to just add that, as far as my understanding goes, a chaotic system does not need any external forcing to cause it to change states. It is the nature of the system to continually move between great attractors. If this is the correct interpretation, then imho, we don’t need to be looking for these elusive forcings to account for recent warming, and we won’t need to look for those in the future to account for eventual cooling.

  71. Lindzen’s climate sensitivity of 0.5 C per doubling CO2 is extremely low when compared to the consensus of 2 to 4.5 C per doubling by most experts. I wish his value were true but it is an outlier.

    Here are two good links that discuss forcings and feedbacks:

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Bony_etal.html

  72. MartinGAtkins says:

    hunter (08:54:50) :

    MartinGAtkins,
    You are likely suffering the after effects of a humorectomy.

    This is a science blog and as such I reserve the right to apply Correctawrongary.

  73. Sandy says:

    “In other words, had the earth just been a lump of rock at this distance from the sun, its average temperature would be about 40F. Does anyone have a link to the source of this info? (Of course, it would have to be peer reviewed…)”

    The Moon is a lump of rock without an atmosphere at 1 AU from the sun.

  74. Forget about average global temperatures. Forget about ice caps melting and Polar Bears floating across the Atlantic on ice cubes. Forget about rising sea levels, droughts, increased hurricanes, floods and on and on. Also forget about sunspot cycles or El-Nino and La-Nina, or whatever the hell else has been thrown into the mix as a distraction because none of it matters, none of it is relevant. All we have to do is drill down and focus on one thing only.

    That one thing is CO2.

    It is claimed that humans are responsible for Climate Change because of our CO2 emissions and that we need to have limits imposed because we need to reduce our emissions of CO2.

    So first simply ask yourself this:

    Can CO2 trap in heat?

    Answer: NO, nothing traps in heat, substances can only absorb and re-emit heat but they cannot trap heat.

    Next question, does CO2 absorb heat more strongly than the other gasses in the atmosphere?

    Answer: NO, CO2 is only 0.03811% of the atmosphere and remains as solid ice up to a temperature of 194.65 K

    Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere on the other hand, begin to melt at temperatures as low as 50-60 K and so are much stronger absorbers of heat and at the same time, make up most of the atmospheric gasses.

    This puts the effect of CO2 into context. CO2 cannot trap heat as no gasses in the atmosphere can. CO2 is a tiny proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, so tiny in fact that compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen it is barely noticeable. The effect of such tiny amounts of CO2 being a much weaker absorber of heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, also show that the warming effect of CO2 is insignificant.

    So the final question is, are we responsible for Climate Change through our CO2 emissions?

    Answer: NO WE MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Take that to Copenhagen!

    If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book

    [snip - self promotion ]

  75. Charlie says:

    I found this paragraph a classic:

    “However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt.”

  76. hunter says:

    MartinGAtkins,
    As long as we understand each other.
    ;^)

  77. Indiana Bones says:

    Jeremy (07:01:27) :

    I am so very very glad I went to an eminent Canadian University to study Engineering Physics (including atmospheric physics) and did not go to MIT. This supression of science and fact in order to achieve political agendas and generate funding is very simply, white collar corruption.

    The AGW exercise teaches us something about models. Specifically that models of complex systems fail with regularity. And because models (aka sims) are created by people they are subject to bias. In this case a heavy political bias against western interests. This gives substance to the idea that the behavior of august institutes and governments are little more than components of a flawed model itself.

    The only problem with MIT’s backing alternative energy research and development is its unfortunate link to global warming. We need to develop non-fossil sources of energy regardless of climate. MIT has been forced to back the failed AGW campaign in exchange for government/industry favor.

  78. Vincent says:

    “Lindzen’s climate sensitivity of 0.5 C per doubling CO2 is extremely low when compared to the consensus of 2 to 4.5 C per doubling by most experts. I wish his value were true but it is an outlier.”

    The reason is not hard to find. The high values come from computer models which contain the unproven assumption of net positive feedbacks. Also, I would hesitate to call this a consensus. There are a number of reputable climate scientists who reject the positive feedback hypothesis, including Spencer, Christy, Eschenbach as well as Lindzen. It’s just that the IPCC will not include any papers that don’t conform to the warming hypothesis.

    But you knew that already, didn’t you?

  79. Bart says:

    Sandy (02:57:28) : I initially made the mistake that the climate modelers were asserting overall positive feedback as well, and concluded that this was impossible, as you do, because it would already have created a runaway effect.

    However, that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is that there are positive feedbacks in an overall negative feedback system, which increases the gain at low frequencies, hence the sensitivity to forcings.

    Take the simple system H(s) = 1/(s – eps), where s is the Laplace variable and eps is a positive constant. Stabilize it with a negative feedback K > eps. The closed loop is now Hcl(s) = K/(s + K-eps). The dc gain is K/(K-eps) > 1. As eps increases, the dc gain is amplified.

    Rob Vermeulen (00:31:19): I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback.

    Overall positive feedback is disproved by the stability of the climate to date. The question is whether internal positive feedback is causing amplification of the sensitivity to CO2 forcing. Lindzen is saying that, no, the internal feedback which is modeled as a critical amplifier in all the models is, in fact, negative. In the example I gave Sandy above, the dc closed loop gain is K/(K+eps) < 1 rather than what you get with positive feedback. The AGW hypothesis relies on amplification by this particular mode to assert increased sensitivity to CO2 forcing. If Lindzen is right, then the AGW prognostication based on the models is wrong, or at least, erroneously concluded.

  80. NK says:

    To: Scott A. Mandia (11:24:10) :

    Mr. Mandia, I don’t mean to be rude but — don’t you read? below is a statement from the chris colose website you link to. As you can see he concludes that atmospheric sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 1 Cel. His article leaves out discussion of feedbacks because he was laying out a ‘simple’ model. He believes in positive feedbacks, with resulting sensitivity of 3 cel. Lindzen also believes in 1 Cel. sensitivity without feedbacks, but Lindzen has concluded clouds cause negative feedback, so the resulting sensitivity is .5 Cel. That’s what this whole debate is about, FEEDBACKS. Honest AGW believers and skeptics have common ground in the 1 Cel. physical effect of doubling CO2. The problem for alarmists is that a 1 Cel. increase is benign, and probably on balance beneficial to modern society; hence positive feedbacks and their claim to the end of the world. Please read your own link, Cheers.

    Response– This is kind of tedious. Your 0.3% number is utterly meaningless. It is like saying a meter of sea level rise is small compared to ocean which is miles deep. This quantity is not useful to people on low-lying areas. The small numbers in consideration can be dangerous because we’re talking about the derivative, not absolute numbers. *Only* a 4 or 5 C decrease in global temperatures can give you another ice age, for context.

    CO2 radiative forcing is a logarithm, but your number (100th of a degree Celsius!) comes out of nowhere, and is completely wrong. As I said, it is more like 1 C with a doubling of CO2 (without feedbacks) and more around 3 C with feedbacks.– chris

  81. david_in_ct says:

    HI Chris:
    Since you apparently believe in the 3C with feedbacks it should be easy for you to take a bet on whether or not the next decades avg temp will increase .2C. Looking at the IPCC numbers .2 would be somewhere near 1 SD south of the expected pace or an event that should happen about 1/6 th of the time. This would mean that someone who really believed in the IPCC model projections should be very very happy to bet even money on something they believe should happen 84% of the time.
    So If you or anyone else that you know in the AGW community would like to place a substantial wager on either of the satellite data sets or even better, the implied OHC numbers generated by the ARGO network I would be more than happy to take the other side. (Sorry no GISSTEMP or HADCRUT silliness).
    Thanks
    david

  82. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Rob Vermeulen (00:31:19) :

    About the pdf file:

    Lindzen ends up showing there is a negative feedback between reflected sunlight and sea surface temperatures. I really, really can’t see how it disproves the rest and especially the existence of a globally positive feedback. The variaiton of reflected sunlight is indeed itself inversely related to the amount of power absorbed by the oceans. The more the oeceans absorb sunlight, the less sunlight will be reflected. Then of course oceans are coupled to the rest of the planetary system, i.e. the block diagram shown is not complete. They reemit heat at a longer time scale and at different wavelengths (typically the IRs). So what’s the point exactly? Is he trying to show that oceans will absorb excess sunlight forever without ever releasing it? “””

    Well we know pretty well just how much sunlight is reflected from the oceans; it is a fairly simple optical problem, that yields about 3% of the total incident solar energy getting reflected and 975 getting absorbed, so the earths deep oceans look pretty much like a black body to the sun; well a grey body with 0.97 emissivity over the solar spectrum range (say 0.1 to 4 microns).

    We also know that water vapor is responsible for a global positive feedback effect, due to absorption of LWIR emitted from the surface; because that si why the earth is not an ice ball; “greenhouse effect” warming due to water vapor. Water vapor also has a negative feedback effect as well, in that incoming solar spectrum energy from about 0.75 out to around 4 microns is affected by several absorption nads that cover about half of that total spectral range. This capture of incoming solar energy results in less sunlight reaching the surface; and the oceans in particular; so it results in cooling of the surface. Yes it does result in heating of the atmosphere by that captured solar energy; but any resulting LWIR re-emission from the warmed atmosphere; can have no where near the warming effect that would have resulted from letting that solar energy reach the surface (oceans). For a start about half of that atmospheric warming energy is going to get lost back into space, and less than half of it should make it to the surface.
    That which does make it to the surface has a vastly diffrerent effect on the surface (oceans) than does the solar energy. The downward LWIR around 10.1 micorns or so, is strongly absorbed by liquid water, in about the top 10 microns or so of the sea surface; the solar 4 micron stuff is even more strongly absorbed.
    This concentration the the LWIR absorption in the very surface of the water results in rather prompt evaporation of higher energy molecules from the surface; so the Downward IR tends to result in increased evaporation; along with the transport of a lot of latent heat of evaporation into the atmosphere; where ordinary convection results in transporting it to higher qaltitude where clouds can form, and the latent heat can be dumped out as the vapor liquefies (around 545 cal/gram) with the possibility of another 80 cal/gm when the liquid droplets freeze.

    It is those clouds which form solely as a result of the physical properties of water; that results in the negative feedback; by reflecting a lot of sunlight off the cloud tops back into space (albedo), and blocking further sunlight from reaching the ground; particularly with clouds containing precipitable water. With the present orbital and solar output conditions; the water cycle seems to reach a dynamic balance with about 50% of the earth surface covered in clouds at any given time.

    I would say the whole system is sitting at a quite stable state; about which it will drift due to chaotic weather events.

  83. @ NK (12:40:55) :

    I am quite aware of what climate sensitivity means.

    I chose to link to CC’s discussion because he did a nice job of discussing feedbacks. I chose to link to Bony et al. because they have reviewed the literature and conclude the following feedbacks (understanding all of the caveats related to estimating these feedbacks):

    Water vapor: 1.80 +/- 0.18 Wm^-2 K^-1
    Lapse rate: -0.84 +/- 0.26 Wm^-2 K^-1
    Clouds: 0.69 +/- 0.38 Wm^-2 K^-1
    Albedo: 0.26 +/- 0.08 Wm^-2 K^-1

    Lindzen’s 0.5 is quite an outlier.

  84. Gregg E. says:

    Anyone got a verified source for that 1922 US Weather Bureau report? I’d love to spread that around, with proof it’s from a real report. :)

    Here’s a more detailed version.

    “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
    in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according
    to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from US Consul
    Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
    explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate
    conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

    “Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met
    with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth
    of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great
    masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
    the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers
    have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are
    found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and
    smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being
    encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”

  85. isotopious says:

    MartinGAtkins,

    If you are not scared by the fact that you live on a planet, then most certainly
    you take temperature for granted.

    Only a fool would do that.

  86. David S says:

    Professor Lindzen’s data seems to blow the socks off the AGW theory. Unless his results are proven wrong by other scientists it would seem to leave the AGW crowd with two options; 1) abandon AGW theory or 2) ignore Lindzen’s work. My guess is they will choose door #2.

  87. David S says:

    I think Professor Lindzen is being rather subtle when he uses the title “Deconstructing global warming”.
    IMHO a more descriptive title would be “Demolishing AGW”.

  88. savethesharks says:

    rbateman: And that is why 2 wrongs don’t make a right. It’s wrong to gamble at massive alteration of whole civilizations, and it’s wrong to do it blindfolded.
    History teaches us that adaptation is the best thing humans have going for them. I see no reason to abandon it in favor of outright hysteria.

    Hear, hear.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  89. anna v says:

    Scott A. Mandia (17:38:20) :

    @ NK (12:40:55) :

    I am quite aware of what climate sensitivity means.

    I chose to link to CC’s discussion because he did a nice job of discussing feedbacks. I chose to link to Bony et al. because they have reviewed the literature and conclude the following feedbacks (understanding all of the caveats related to estimating these feedbacks):

    Water vapor: 1.80 +/- 0.18 Wm^-2 K^-1
    Lapse rate: -0.84 +/- 0.26 Wm^-2 K^-1
    Clouds: 0.69 +/- 0.38 Wm^-2 K^-1
    Albedo: 0.26 +/- 0.08 Wm^-2 K^-1

    Lindzen’s 0.5 is quite an outlier.

    Have you looked at the PDF presentation, link above in the post?

    The numbers you give are from climate models .

    The crux of the presentation is in the last figure, which plots the results of an equation on which the models and data are evaluated and the small sensitivity comes from where the data cross the curve. The models cross the curve at a different point than the data.

    It is the CERES data that give an outlier.
    Who wins?
    Models or data?

  90. peeke says:

    Exactly, anna. Lindzen makes a such a strong case because he uses measurements to calculate sensitivity. Thus, if some here say they can’t imagine a negative feedback my answer would be: Start looking. The data shows there is one.

  91. tom says:

    A scary global warming story( with positive feedback)
    Time:18,000 B.C. Ice age humans gather around their Shaman and asking him: Oh all knowing Nesnah, please tell us what our future will bring. Not good, said Nesnah. We reached the tipping point. We are at the end of Milankovitch cycle.The sun will shine a little bit stronger and the ice will start to melt. No big loss, said the ice age humans, we have plenty ice an we can use a little bit more sunshine. Aha, said Nesnah, but you are forgetting positive feedback.When the ice melts, the albedo is reduced and you will get even more warming and more ice melting and it will go on until all the ice is gone. How will build your igloos without any ice? With the polar bears all gone where will you get your furs to protect you? I tell you, we are facing a bleak and terrible future.

  92. Phlogiston says:

    Vincent (10:46:58) 28 Oct

    Couldn’t agree more. Its frustrating to hear experimental data challenged with the “the models dont predict it” argument. It is indeed a complete logical and scientific fallacy to reject experimental measurements on the basis that one cant find an explanation or a forcing for it on the basis of your preconceptions of the system. This is putting the cart before the horse. Indeed nonlinear systems have intrinsic oscillations including moving between attractors, which require no role of external forcing.

    There is evidence that climatic fluctuations such as of global temperature show non-equilibrium pattern dynamics. What is diagnostic of non-equilibrium emergent pattern? One strong indicator is fractal character, measured by making the log-log plot and looking for linearity. This relates to the distribution of magnitude of changes: very steep changes occur very rarely (e.g. glacial to interglacial slopes), smaller incremental changes more frequently, with a log-log relation.

    For example, take the Petit 1999 deuterium temperature reconstruction from the Vostok core going back 420,000 years. You can look at the difference (change) measured between neighboring core data points going back (or forward) in time. Then plot the nat log of point to point deg C change with nat log of frequency. What you get is:

    Change between consecutive data points deg C,Frequency,NatLog of change,NatLog of frequency

    0.1,2074,-2.30258,7.63723
    0.2,322,-1.60944,5.77455
    0.3,285,-1.20397,5.65249
    0.4,198,-0.91629,5.28827
    0.5,162,-0.69315,5.08760
    0.6,82,-0.51083,4.40672
    0.7,54,-0.35667,3.98898
    0.8,49,-0.22314,3.89182
    0.9,37,-0.10536,3.61092
    1,19,0,2.94444
    1.1,8,0.09531,2.07944
    1.2,8,0.18232,2.07944
    1.3,9,0.26236,2.19722

    y = -2.1052x + 3.0077
    R2 = 0.9305

    x: nat log of change
    y: nat log of frequency

    So with an R2 of 0.93 we have what is effectively the fractal dimension of Vostok temperature change of 2.105. The temporal changes in temperature do appear to show fractal character thus evidence that global temperatures are controlled by processes which possess non-linear / non-equilibrium emergent pattern.

  93. @ anna v (23:34:45) and peeke (00:53:42) :

    Yes, these numbers are from modeling various feedbacks. However, model parameterization is not arbitrary. These values are based upon observations and the current understanding of the process being considered. The Bony et al. paper includes obervations, physical understanding, and model results to attempt to determine how well models are handling feedbacks.

    The science here is real and these values, although not perfect, are at the very least, going to be the correct sign. If so, then Lindzen’s 0.5C sensitivity is quite an outlier.

  94. Phlogiston says:

    tom

    Nice one! Another scary climate change story:

    A group of bacteria huddle together in an anoxic pond – the date is about 2 billion BC. They are dicsussing some alarming reports that the toxic gas oxygen is beginning to increase in the atmosphere. They also consulted their shaman about this. The first thing we must do, he replied, is to classify this oxygen as a pollutant. Then we must set percentage limits on the growth of these undesirable blue-green bacteria that are causing the problem by their extravagant consumption of resources and irresponsible emission of oxygen.

    We must restrict these blue-greens, the shaman concluded, since they threaten our way of life. Regardless of what consequences there are to the rest of the biosphere, us anaerobic bacteria will be marginalised to the sidelines of a future oxygen-rich world. We cant let that happen!

  95. anna v says:

    Scott A. Mandia (06:12:13) :

    @ anna v (23:34:45) and peeke (00:53:42) :

    Yes, these numbers are from modeling various feedbacks. However, model parameterization is not arbitrary. These values are based upon observations and the current understanding of the process being considered. The Bony et al. paper includes obervations, physical understanding, and model results to attempt to determine how well models are handling feedbacks.

    The science here is real and these values, although not perfect, are at the very least, going to be the correct sign. If so, then Lindzen’s 0.5C sensitivity is quite an outlier.

    Look at the last figure of the presentation found in http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf , page 48 :

    The models are there with their sensitivities. It is the data of ERBE-CERES that hit the curve at a different point than the models.

    You could criticize the theoretical formula which is described in the presentation, and find an error in its formulation, if youcan. You cannot say “the value from the data is an outlier”, when the outliers are the values of the modelsas far as this simple formula goes.

  96. david_in_ct says:

    Scott:

    Do you have any thoughts as to why there is not a single AGW supporter willing to make a substantial wager on the outcome of the IPCC predictions for the next 10 years. I am giving even money on something that ought to happen 5/6 times. Why do you think there are no takers?

    Could it be that AGW supporters don’t actually believe their own models and instead are merely in it for the financial gain which comes from the continuation political gravy train?

    If I had some model which predicted something would occur 5/6 times and someone offered to bet even money against it, I’d certainly be happy to put on a big position.

  97. NK says:

    Scott–

    What is the significance of an outlier as compared to other models? Answer, are the other models right or not. Lindzen here makes a much stronger case that observational data shows the qualities of cloud formation and albedo, and that data outweighs theoretical constructs of water vapor creation and ocean heat content, hence he concludes that the positive feedback models are erroneous. IF Lindzen is right about that (I agree that can’t be proven yet), being an outlier makes him correct vis a vis the erroneous models. The fact that he is an ‘outlier’ as compared to other models is irrelevant, because you presuppose that the assumptions imbedded in the other models are correct. That is why AGW modelling can never be science; change the assumptions and the answers the models pump out also change. Sorry you make no pertnent point.

  98. George E. Smith says:

    “”” NK (08:39:21) :

    Scott–

    What is the significance of an outlier as compared to other models? Answer, are the other models right or not. Lindzen here makes a much stronger case that observational data shows the qualities of cloud formation and albedo, and that data outweighs theoretical constructs of water vapor creation and ocean heat content, hence he concludes that the positive feedback models are erroneous. IF Lindzen is right about that (I agree that can’t be proven yet), being an outlier makes him correct vis a vis the erroneous models. The fact that he is an ‘outlier’ as compared to other models is irrelevant, because you presuppose that the assumptions imbedded in the other models are correct. That is why AGW modelling can never be science; change the assumptions and the answers the models pump out also change. Sorry you make no pertnent point. “””

    Try reading Wentz et al “How much more Rain Will Global Warming Bring ?” in SCIENCE July 07/2007

    The only thing Wentz doesn’t say in his paper; but which is an obvious and inescapable conclusion from his observational measurments; is that a one deg C rise in mean global temperature; which he observes results in a 7% increase in total global evaporation; total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation; must also imply an increase (maybe even about 7%) in total global precipitatble cloud cover. Where I come from, it is fashionable to have somewhat dark clouds when one has precipitation. Not only do those cloud (increases) raise the albedo of the earth and reflect more sunlight back into space; but that dark cloud also blocks additional solar radiation from reaching the surface; which is 73% strongly absorbing ocean. It wouldn’t even take a 7% increase in precipitable cloud cover globally to create more than enough negative feedback cooling to swamp the original 1 deg C temperature rise.

    A one deg C rise out of say 288Kelvins (0.00347) would require an increase in total ground level insolation of about 0.0139; roughly 1.4%.

    Cloud cover is about 50% on average, so a 7% increase is five times what is needed in increased insolation to cause a 1deg C rise.

  99. NK says:

    TO: George E. Smith (10:43:21) :

    Your negative feedback suggestion is far more plausible to me than the AGW positive feedback theory. However my skeptism requires me to remind you your plausible suggestion has not been proven by scientific method. The scale of climate, coupled with the distinct possibility there is no feedback mechanism of any kind because the entire climate system is chaotic, gave the AGW alarmists the wiggle room to spread their nonsense. That is one reason how this AGW thing morphed into a political game rather than a scientific issue.

  100. Jeremy says:

    Indiana Bones:The only problem with MIT’s backing alternative energy research and development is its unfortunate link to global warming. We need to develop non-fossil sources of energy regardless of climate. MIT has been forced to back the failed AGW campaign in exchange for government/industry favor.

    You make it sound like a small thing to tell outright lies (what MIT is doing). Do you and Susan Hockfield perhaps share the same ethics…which is that honesty is secondary to getting the funding necessary for a good cause. The end justifies the means…we need a new source of energy to replace fossil fuels so it is justified to fabricate and propagate alarmist nonsense in order to scare people away from fossil fuels, increase taxes on industry, drive up the price of food (ethanol debacle) and seek billions in funding for pet research projects (money that comes from other perhaps more noble scientific or public policy pursuits – like health, welfare…)

  101. ThinkingBeing says:

    George Smith — Your theory suffers from two flaws. The first is the assumption that an increase in total evaporation must lead to an increase in cloud cover. This is not necessarily true. Possible, but not necessarily. For example, the increase in temperature, and the increase in evaporation, is partly due to the increase in the saturation vapor pressure of water in the warmer atmosphere. Loosely translated, it means the air can hold more water *without condensation*. It does not necessarily translate that the increase in water vapor will result in more clouds. In fact, it could result in less.

    In addition, your assumption that more clouds results in a negative feedback is also suspect. It is believed that more low clouds will result in an increase in albedo, how ever an increase in high clouds is expected to result in a positive feedback, where there will be a net greenhouse effect. High clouds are to be expected over low clouds, because of the change in lapse rate in a warmer atmosphere… although Lindzen argues that low coulds will form at the tropics, and so provide a desired negative feedback.

    Basically, clouds generally form at the altitude where temperatures have dropped to the point where water vapor can condense. That’s why on a normal afternoon you can look up and all of the clouds seem to be floating at the same altitude. Moist air warms, rises to the altitude where the temperature is low enough for condensation, and clouds form at that altitude. A higher temperature raises this altitude. It’s not entirely that simple, but that’s my point…

    Using basic common sense *to a point*, but only to a point, is fallacious. It’s much more complicated than that. And the people who are being paid to do it (whether you think they should be paid or not) are putting a lot of time and thought into this.

  102. Gregg E. says:

    Snowing here today (somewhere in the Pacific Northwest) where it just about never snows until mid December.

    I guess this is what an “outlier” and an “anomaly” looks like. ;)

  103. Indiana Bones says:

    Jeremy (13:54:37) :

    Indiana Bones:The only problem with MIT’s backing alternative energy research and development is its unfortunate link to global warming. We need to develop non-fossil sources of energy regardless of climate. MIT has been forced to back the failed AGW campaign in exchange for government/industry favor.

    You make it sound like a small thing to tell outright lies (what MIT is doing). Do you and Susan Hockfield perhaps share the same ethics…which is that honesty is secondary to getting the funding necessary for a good cause.

    I made no comment re: honesty. If you are “forced to back a failed AGW campaign,” it’s sorta like backing the local despot. You do so to stay alive and hope the despot meets an imminent end. We are all aware of the poor ethical behavior of the AGW community. Implicit in my comment is the idea that such a failure is caused by problems with ethics.

    The need for domestic energy independence remains.

  104. Bart says:

    ThinkingBeing (15:30:23)

    “Lindzen argues that low coulds will form at the tropics, and so provide a desired negative feedback.”

    Let us be precise. Lindzen is arguing that could be the mechanism to explain why his empirical data show negative feedback. But, regardless of whether that is the correct mechanism or not, his data show a negative feedback.

  105. ThinkingBeing says:

    Bart — That is still be evaluated (that his data show a negative feedback). In particular, he relies heavily on the concept that the system has already reached equilibrium, when his measured time scales for SST increases are in mere months. This is true in an insensitive climate, as he argues, but there is a lot of evidence that the climate is not so insensitive, and so the crux of the paper has a major issue. I personally read both his recent paper, and the 1994 paper on which it heavily relies, and found a lot of holes in his logic. At the same time, I have seen a number of references to the fact that the data he used still doesn’t seem to jibe with what’s been published elsewhere.

    That being said, yes, you are right, Lindzen doesn’t give a mechanism, just an argument against AGW, and I have a big problem with that. It’s not how science should work. Coming up with a hypothesis is part of the process. The hypothesis of “I don’t want AGW to be true and I’m going to disprove it” is rather lame.

    Not being a climatologist, I will wait to hear what the experts have to say before going too far in any direction, but my own gut reactions are:

    (1) Such a convenient safety net in a climate system that clearly is not so stable as he implies would be just too good to be true (“go ahead and be careless, humanity, God has everything covered”).

    (2) The lack of an explanation for the observed behavior is a big hole. Science isn’t about proving that the sun comes up every day, it’s about understanding how and why the sun comes up every day.

    (3) The tone and content of the presentation referenced here is, too me, extremely unprofessional and makes his own work suspect. In particular, there are any number of obvious fallacies in the arguments he presents. If he only put forth good, valid arguments he’d be credible. When he puts forth as many arguments as he can, many of them suspect, then I suspect all of his arguments, even the ones that seem good on the surface.

    (4) He has a decades long history of trying to argue this same point, that everything is fine and the climate will take care of itself, no worries. Each time his arguments are insufficient, he goes back to the well one more time, trying to find another angle. After a while, it just doesn’t seem like science anymore. It seems more like a wife nagging her husband to cut the grass.

    But, as I said… I will wait for climatologists to finish their reviews of his work. For now, it’s hardly the “stake in the heart of AGW” that deniers seem to think it is, though.

  106. NK says:

    Hey ThinkingBeing (10:14:48) :

    Iam sure you are just as skeptical of the AGW alarmists relying entirely on econometric type models to calculate positive feedbacks, which have not even be observed by actual data, as you are of Lindzen hypothesizing why his data shows negative feedback. Oh wait, you are waiting for the alarmists to review and tell you what to say. Gosh you’re a sap. in point of fact, Lindzen is following the scientific method. He has real climate data, and he is fiting a hypothesis to that data. Does that end the science. No, he will have to show future data predictably, and repeatedly, fitting his hypothesis. The difference between Lindzen and AGW alarmists putting together models with their own assumptions of how the climate will behave and then pumping out the results they want and claiming the ‘debate is over’ is stark. Do yourself a favor, reserve some of your skeptism for the AGW nonsense.

  107. Bart says:

    ThinkingBeing (10:14:48) :

    “That being said, yes, you are right, Lindzen doesn’t give a mechanism, just an argument against AGW, and I have a big problem with that. It’s not how science should work.”

    You have it exactly backwards. That is precisely how science should work. You start with data, then form an hypothesis, not the other way around. Lindzen is starting with the data. The AGWers started with the hypothesis, and have been trying ever since to fit the data to it. The data inform the science, the science does not inform the data.

    Someone on another board quoted Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character in this respect. I though it was extremely apropos, so I saved it.

    ‘“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Sherlock Holmes.’

  108. ThinkingBeing says:

    NK:

    Personal attacks on me are unnecessary and unproductive.

    General statements equating all climatologists to alarmists betrays a level of extremism and a locked-in position that puts the value of your own statements into question.

    Your interpretation of Lindzen’s paper is not in agreement with mine, but I won’t argue it. As I said, I’ll wait for the scientific process to work through it.

    Your interpretation of the approach of “alarmists putting together models with their own assumptions” is flat out wrong. Your problem is that you’ve decided what you want to believe, and now you’re simply grabbing at whatever evidence you can to support your position or refute the other.

    Contrary to what you may think, based on a few paragraphs I’ve posted here, I have not closed my mind. I am constantly reading, and studying, and learning, and understanding. I trust no one and nothing. As soon as I saw Lindzen’s paper I downloaded it, read it many times, then got his 1994 paper, and downloaded and read that, too.

    The difference between you and I is that I never labeled Lindzen’s work “nonsense”. I don’t label anyone’s work nonsense. I give it all a chance, and weigh it as I see fit. It’s just that in this case, to me, Lindzen’s paper has come up lacking, while his obvious politic bent does cast suspicions on his intent… so I will wait for people who are more knowledgeable on the subject to either confirm my own interpretation, or refute it. Either is fine. I only want to understand, and to arrive at the truth.

  109. Bart says:

    Some comments:

    (1) Such a convenient safety net in a climate system that clearly is not so stable as he implies would be just too good to be true (“go ahead and be careless, humanity, God has everything covered”).

    It is not merely convenient. It is no coincidence. The climate must be very stable, else we would not be here.

    (2) The lack of an explanation for the observed behavior is a big hole. Science isn’t about proving that the sun comes up every day, it’s about understanding how and why the sun comes up every day.

    But we start with the data, which says the sun comes up every day.

    (3) The tone and content of the presentation referenced here is, too me, extremely unprofessional and makes his own work suspect. In particular, there are any number of obvious fallacies in the arguments he presents. If he only put forth good, valid arguments he’d be credible. When he puts forth as many arguments as he can, many of them suspect, then I suspect all of his arguments, even the ones that seem good on the surface.

    You would have to walk a mile in Prof. Lindzen’s shoes. It is the very model of restraint compared to what his opponents have put him through.

    (4) He has a decades long history of trying to argue this same point, that everything is fine and the climate will take care of itself, no worries. Each time his arguments are insufficient, he goes back to the well one more time, trying to find another angle. After a while, it just doesn’t seem like science anymore. It seems more like a wife nagging her husband to cut the grass.

    This could be said of the other side, as well, except they have huge media support to provide backup and flush inconvenient prior assertions down the memory hole. I see it right now in the AGWers furious attempt to minimize the inconvenient cooling spell we are going through which they never expected.

  110. Bart says:

    One more comment:

    “…he relies heavily on the concept that the system has already reached equilibrium…”

    I think you mean (correct me if I am wrong), he is assuming a steady state response without transient behavior. But, the CO2 forcing is very smooth, so I would expect this to be a reasonable assumption.

  111. Bart says:

    Excuse me, I mean the SST forcing of flux. I forgot which analysis we were discussing. What a drag it is getting old…

  112. ThinkingBeing says:

    Bart — on your last post, only…

    “But, the CO2 forcing is very smooth, so I would expect this to be a reasonable assumption.”

    No, not quite. First, the CO2 forcing itself isn’t the only issue. The increased water vapor in the atmosphere is more important. In addition, heat uptake by the ocean is important, because of the amount of mass (and therefore heat capacity) involved, so no… a matter of months is hardly appropriate.

    But that isn’t really relevant anyway. The point behind his 1994 paper (a point that I don’t think he adequately made) was that in low sensitivity climates (i.e. ones that wil not change much due to unexpected forcings), there would be negative feedbacks that occur very quickly to keep the system in balance. This is contrasted with a climate with high sensitivity, where positive feedbacks, according to Lindzen, would take longer to show their effects and exacerbate the problem.

    So his position is very simply that in any system, regardless of the nature of the forcing, if the system has low sensitivity, there will be negative feedbacks that hold the system in place (hence the low sensitivity), and those feedbacks will take hold very quickly (otherwise positive feedbacks would battle them), while in a system with high sensitivity, there would be positive feedbacks that push the system further out of whack before it stabilizes, and no negative feedbacks to hold them in check.

    All of this has nothing to do with the nature, duration, regularity or intensity of the forcing. Low sensitivity, fast negative feedbacks versus high sensitivity, slow positive feedbacks. That’s his position.

    His paper says that since he detected outgoing radiation through ERBE that is in line with radiating out all of the incremental heat detected in the SST, that therefore it is evidence of some negative feedback that is in line with his hypothesis, and therefore positive feedbacks, even if the logic behind them is accurate, will never have a chance to take hold.

  113. Bart says:

    ThinkingBeing (12:42:13):

    You seem to be saying that, yes, there may be an initial positive correlation (negative climate feedback) between delta-SST and delta-ourward flux, but that does not preclude the possibility that the relationship could invert later.

    But, what you appear to have missed is that all of the current climate models, upon which the current alarm is founded, show a negative correlation from the get go. Does this not call into question those models?

    Am I not right in concluding that, if I take your cautious stance, and assuming the analysis has been carried out correctly and the data are valid, Lindzen may be wrong, but the other modelers are definitely wrong?

  114. ThinkingBeing says:

    Bart —

    You highlight another problem with Lindzen’s paper. All of the current AMIP models do show a positive feedback. His approach necessarily could not include CMIP model runs, which are the ones that are used to measure climate sensitivity and to make future projections, not the AMIP models. But he couldn’t use the CMIP models because they aren’t tied to specific SST observations.

    So your statement that “all of the current climate models…” is wrong; only the AMIP models exhibit this behavior. Your statement “upon which the current alarm is founded” is also wrong, because it’s not the AMIP models at all, it’s the CMIP models that are used for that purpose.

  115. Bart says:

    “You highlight another problem with Lindzen’s paper.”

    You have not established that there are any problems with it.

    “it’s not the AMIP models at all, it’s the CMIP models that are used for that purpose…”

    Are you conceding and/or declaring that the AMIP models are fundamentally flawed and their results virtually useless?

    “But he couldn’t use the CMIP models because they aren’t tied to specific SST observations.”

    CMIP and AMIP agree closely in their fundamental predictions. If you remove the positive feedback from the AMIP, they will diverge considerably.

    In this paper, the authors state of the CMIP models:

    These coupled climate models have exhibited a problem not evident in the behavior of atmospheric GCMs run with prescribed SSTs and sea ice. Errors in fluxes of heat, momentum and water across the ocean-atmosphere interface can lead to “climate drift” away from observations. Nonphysical, ad hoc flux adjustments were initially regarded as necessary to correct the problem.

    The paper then discusses “two recently developed coupled models that do not use flux adjustment.” I read that as, the CMIP models were tweaked specifically to bring them closer in line to the AMIP results, i.e., the AMIP models were used as “truth” models to validate the CMIP. It follows that if the AMIP models are buggered, so are the CMIP models, yes?

  116. doug stringfellow says:

    Great report Dr. Lindzen! Global warming is a farce created to line the pockets of Al Gore & his cronies along with other wack jobs around the world. Stop the madness!!!!!!! No climate bill!!! ds

  117. ThinkingBeing says:

    Bart —

    “You have not established that there are any problems with it.”

    Yes I have, repeatedly and I think quite clearly. This is typical “denial” behavior… just pretend not to see what’s right in front of you.

    But it’s clear evidence that this isn’t a discussion for you, it’s a game. I don’t play games with this subject.

  118. anna v says:

    From listening to Monckton’s presentation of one of Lindzen’s plot I appreciate better the argument. It is the figure where :

    Page 45 models, page 46 data., delta of the radiation flux leaving the earth versus delta of the sea surface temperature. Models give a negative slope, the larger the delta of temperature the smaller the delta of radiated energy, which is really the presumed effect of greenhouse gases, to delay the exit of energy from the earth system. Nevertheless, the data show that the higher the delta energy the higher the delta of radiation to space, showing that increases in temperature do not follow the models.

    the final figure is just a recalculation of these facts, models versus data, extracting the sensitivity.

    There is no doubt that the models are off and have to be scrapped and redone.

    Now how the western world will handicap itself economically based on false models goes beyond logic and into cult mentalities.

  119. Dan Pangburn says:

    All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are accurately calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. See how in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.

  120. Bart says:

    “I don’t play games with this subject.”

    Clearly, you do. If you were honest, you would have said, “yes, AMIP = CMIP, and if Lindzen’s analysis holds up, it will call model-based AGW into serious question.” But, you didn’t. How very disappointing.

    I pinned your queen, and now you are taking your ball and going home, if I may engage in a painful yet vivid game-related mixed metaphor.

  121. ThinkingBeing says:

    “I pinned your queen…”

    Oh, yes, your brilliant analysis and rapier debating abilities, along with Lindzen’s oh so insightful deconstruction of every aspect of the AGW position, has completely eliminated the question of global warming. It’s all over, everyone. Bart has declared himself the winner. We can all go home in our SUVs and watch movies on plasma TVs now. Nothing more to be done.

    [All you have done is to prove to me that you, like many of your ilk, cannot have a rational discussion, because your favorite argument is to simply declare that black is white, or that I just said that black is white. It's easy for you to "pin my queen" if you do so by simply ignoring the rules and making up your own.]

    So, farewell. Enjoy ranting and raving at like minded people that all agree with you… But Lindzen’s paper, even if it holds up, is not the end of the discussion. It’s a small piece. There’s no such thing as “pinning the queen” in this, and it’s not a game.

    That’s a lot of the denial problem. You keep looking for one magic bullet that will topple the AGW house of cards, and there is none. It’s far too complex for that. That only works for the simple minded that think life is like the action movies you see in the theaters, where the lone good guy, who knows better than his clueless superiors and everyone else, breaks the rules to save the day.

    Well, I should let you go. You must have an anger management class to attend.

  122. Bart says:

    The fact that you had to debase yourself to name-calling, and refuse to acknowledge the argument, shows that you have been stymied. You said to NK: “Personal attacks on me are unnecessary and unproductive.” I guess that was just a debating tactic, to be tossed lightly aside when you find yourself on the defensive.

    I tried to be civil. But, two can play at this game, and truly, it is all a game to you, isn’t it? You are an intellectual lightweight. ‘ThiningBeing’ indeed! What a pitiful little presumptuous screen name.

    Run home to your mamma, kid. You got whipped.

  123. dstringfellow says:

    Gentlemen, let’s get the facts right. Global warming does not exist. At least to the degree that we can do a damn thing about it.Al eGore has done a great job of speading all the lies while laughing all the way to the bank. LOLOLOL LMAO! ds

  124. Dan Pangburn says:

    thinkingbeing,

    Lindzen’s paper does not stand alone.

    There is my research presented in detail at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The latest paper there uses the simple analysis of the time-integral of sunspots and an oscillation attributed to ocean turnover to accurately calculate the temperatures of the 20th century and on into the 21st century.

    Russian research also forecasts global cooling at http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/29/russian-research-forecasts-global-cooling/

    There are many others. A list dated 18 April, 2008 is at http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

  125. Invariant says:

    Dan Pangburn (14:06:56) : Lindzen’s paper does not stand alone. There is my research presented in detail at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The latest paper there uses the simple analysis of the time-integral of sunspots and an oscillation

    Cool to see that the idea I earlier had here on WUWT about the time-integral of solar activity HMF B or TSI is also being suggested by others. Still after the most useful comments from Dr. Svalgaard, and some additional reflections, I do not think that things are this simple. But the initial idea should be scientifically sound, and I would recommend pursuing the following possible ways to improve and refine the concept, namely

    1. Base equations on the heat balance of the earth – the first law of thermodynamics.
    2. Focus more on energy content of our planet than the actual temperature – energy have so many forms of which the temperature is only a measure of the most obvious and easiest to observe.
    3. When focusing on the energy content a first approximation could be to look at heat content in the oceans.
    4. Check how the time integral of sunspots, HMF B or TSI correlates with cloud cover and ocean heat content.

    Avoid to “add epi-cycles” in terms of ocean cycles to the model. These are intrinsic oscillations to our planet and should be predicted by the model – and as such no input to the model.

    Try to argue that a simple “time-integral” approach can explain the climate partly only as other factors are unknown or at least unknown in magnitude relative to the impact from the sun.

    What do you think Dr. Svalgaard?

  126. Dan Pangburn says:

    Invariant,

    Perhaps your idea of the “time integral of the magnetic field of the solar wind” would give as good a correlation as the time-integral of sunspot count. It could not do much better.

    By “energy balance” I was, of course, referring to the first law of thermodynamics which is the fundamental basis of the analysis.

    Energy content is proportional to temperature. Average global temperature anomaly data are available.

    The excellent temperature correlation was achieved without directly referring to the “heat content in the oceans” which is an effect, not a cause.

    I expect that sunspots cause changes to cloud area and average cloud altitude (the temperature at which clouds radiate) which have far more influence on average global temperature than TSI. By correlating with sunspot count, all of that is accounted for.

    The magnitude and duration of the cyclic ocean turnover during the 20th century and on into the 21st century were discovered by the analysis. Once discovered, they are part of the model and are not an input to it.

    This analysis produces calculated temperatures that have a standard deviation of 0.064 C with concurrent measured temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st. It shows that any influence that “other factors” have is minuscule and can be ignored.

  127. Invariant says:

    Dan Pangburn (09:01:56): The magnitude and duration of the cyclic ocean turnover during the 20th century and on into the 21st century were discovered by the analysis. Once discovered, they are part of the model and are not an input to it.

    I am not sure if I understand what you mean. If you add an ocean cycle to the model after the ocean cycle has been observed, it is equivalent to adding an epicycle, which is not usually a good approach in science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle#Slang_for_Bad_Science

    Instead it is better to try to make a model that is only dependent on the boundary and initial conditions, just like the heat equation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation

    Now, the heat equation cannot produce any oscillatory behaviour, but there are a number of systems that can, and the reaction diffusion equation is a nice example,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_diffusion

    This system displays a wide range of oscillatory behaviours, including the formation of travelling waves and wave-like phenomena as well as other self-organized patterns like stripes, hexagons or more intricate structure like dissipative solitons.

    Unlike a model where epicycles have been added manually, a model based on fundamental equations has strong predictive power. The reason is that we do not know when to add an epicycle in the future, but Mother Nature does, and a solid model, like a reaction diffusion model, may thus be able to predict future ocean cycles even if we had no observations available of such cycles.

  128. Dan Pangburn says:

    The ‘heat equation’ as described in Wikipedia only applies to conductive heat transfer. Heat transfer in the oceans is primarily by convection i.e. mass transport of circulation(s).

    Apparently small temperature gradients exist along the circulation paths. The local surface temperature varies depending on what part along the length of the path happens to be on the surface. Apparently the effect on average global temperature of the net result of all this is the observed 32 year long uptrends and downtrends with a magnitude range of 0.45 C. The combination of the trends and the time-integral of sunspot count accurately produces the temperatures measured during the 20th century and at least to the present.

    The analysis discovers at least three things:
    1. The net average global temperature oscillation as a result of ocean turnover can be represented by 32 year up-trends and 32 year downtrends with an amplitude range of 0.45 C.
    2. The time-integral of sunspot count accounts for the net temperature increase over the oscillation that was observed during the last half of the 20th century.
    3. Average global temperature history during the 20th century and at least to the present can be calculated with no consideration whatsoever of added atmospheric CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.

    No one has been able to reliably predict what the future holds. Given the current quiet sun and assuming the oscillation observed during the 20th century continues, we are probably in for planet cooling. But given the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans, even with no sunspots it will take decades to get down to the temperatures observed around 1913.

  129. Invariant says:

    I sincerely agree that if we assume that the oscillation observed during the 20th century continues, we are probably in for planet cooling. Indeed, this is my point of view too, and I strongly think this may happen, but it is still an assumption.

    I know that the heat equation covers conduction in solids only, it was not meant as a model of the climate, but merely as an example equation that illustrates that the initial and boundary conditions is all we need to calculate everything.

    Since every piece of matter in the Universe is in someway affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation – every Galaxy, every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition, and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake

    - Douglas Adams

    The reaction diffusion equation is also too simple, but it is at least valid for Rayleigh-Bernard convection too, which may resemble a simple, but still too trivial, climate system. The point with this equation is that it can produce oscillations without doing any assumptions about the existence of such oscillations.

    I think we can agree that it would be better if the model could come up with oscillations automatically, rather than making the assumption that they will continue as before.

    They may not.

  130. Eric A says:

    I think that there is something funny about Lindzen’s analysis. He has selected certain periods of time when there is a large temporary fluctuation in temperature, to look at the outgoing radiation. These particular incidents represent mainly the result of internal variation due to ocean currents such as El Nino/ La Nina. These are special circumstances during which the oceans are losing energy because a large expanse of warm water pools at the surface.
    There is something special about these events according to detailed studies.
    It seems that global warming during these incidents is not driven by radiation imbalance but rather by hydrological imbalance. So looking at the radational imbalance to understand these events, as Lindzen does may not be correct.

    http://meteora.ucsd.edu/papers/auad/Global_Warm_ENSO.pdf

    The selection of these events, by Lindzen for his studies, does not prove that radiational imbalance due to CO2 is not driving the general trend in temperature that we have seen over the past 30 years or so.

    It is no surprise that thespecial El Nino conditions selected by Lindzen are not reproduced accurately by the models he has chosen. These are different models from the GCM’s used to predict climate trends.

    I expect that when this new paper is studied carefully by climate scientists,
    that it will be found to be deeply flawed.

  131. Dan Pangburn says:

    A good thing about Lindzen’s findings is that it should help to put off the on-going world-wide political power grab and loss of freedom by showing that added atmospheric CO2, and therefore humanities use of fossil fuels, does not cause Global Warming.

    The bad news is that a cooling planet portends crop failure and famine for humanity.

  132. ThinkingBeing says:

    Bart — Please see http://www.drroyspencer.com (Dr. Roy Spencer, who is most certainly NOT an alarmist) for his take on Lindzen’s paper, which is very much in line with what I was saying…

    In summary:

    The system is not in equilibrium, so a snapshot of the radiation at the point where temperatures have just finished ramping up (or down) is not indicative of what is going to continue to happen, especially in terms of long term feedbacks that may take some time to manifest.

    The use of AMIP models is limiting, and here Spencer taught me some things about why AMIP models and CMIP models are different in this respect, and so the AMIP models would understandably appear different and the CMIP models are both different and better.

    He gives other useful information, too, but his closing paragraph really sums it up.

  133. Eric A says:

    Doing a little internet style research on how good the top of atmosphere measurements cited by Lindzen are, I find that the answer is not very good.
    It is estimated that the real discrepancy in energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere should be about 1W/M2 accumulation.

    http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/PolarMet/geog820_2009/Nicolas_2.pdf

    The ERB data shows a small imbalance.
    The CERES data shows an imbalance of 6.4W/M2 that is adjusted to get .9W/M2.

    The data is not good enough to get a read on the validity of the models.
    It is known that there is good agreement except during big events like El Nino/La Nina and volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, which are the only data points used by Lindzen.

  134. Bart says:

    ThinkingBeing (08:08:50) : You don’t even read my responses, do you? AMIP is used to validate CMIP. I included a reference and everything. Scroll up and do some reading.

  135. ThinkingBeing says:

    Bart — Yes, I did read what you said, and it was 100% incorrect, demonstrating to me only how weak your understanding of the subject is. But don’t take my word for it… read the words of Dr. Roy Spencer, a member of the anti-AGW camp himself.

  136. Freedom Fighter says:

    This is all true, Dr Lindzen has clearly proven that Global warming is a conspiracy. It is a plan to bring in a one world government that will control all free world markets. Kevin Rudd is trying to sell Australia out right now, but the liberal party has blocked him for now. This is no joke you NEED to listen to this audio interview: http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

    This is communist dictatorship that is designed to do away with all democracy world wide.

    This is a wicked game and something that everyone should stand up and fight for there freedom. This type of dictatorship is going to give by like what the societ union has over financial markets in there reign.

    This is worse though, because at Copenhagen in early December this conference on climate change is where a treaty is going to be signed that will lock any country that is stupid enough to sign it, to complete control permanently over how the country run their economy.

    Global warming is a smoke screen to take full world control, via heavy taxing.

    However is reading this I URGE you to find out for yourself, this is no joke, I wish it were.

    Thank you

Comments are closed.