The House Testimony on global warming yesterday had a number of excellent presentations, and you can watch the entire video here.
I’ve have professor Richard Lindzen’s presentation saved here in PDF form, and some key excerpts below. Part of his presentation looks like WUWT Sea Ice news. It is well worth the read.
Excerpts:
The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak –and commonly acknowledged as such.
…
Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2(a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.
…
We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative. Similar results are being obtained by Roy Spencer.
This is not simply a technical matter. Without positive feedbacks, doubling CO2only produces 1C warming. Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts.
This becomes clearer when we relate feedbacks to climate sensitivity (ie the warming associated with a doubling of CO2).
…
Discussion of other progress in science can also be discussed if there is any interest. Our recent work on the early faint sun may prove particularly important. 2.5 billion years ago, when the sun was 20% less bright (compared to the 2% change in the radiative budget associated with doubling CO2), evidence suggests that the oceans were unfrozen and the temperature was not very different from today’s. No greenhouse gas solution has worked, but a negative cloud feedback does.
You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.
Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.
===============================================
Entire presentation is available here: Lindzen_Testimony_11-17-2010 (PDF 1.4 MB)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Our recent work on the early faint sun may prove particularly important. 2.5 billion years ago, when the sun was 20% less bright (compared to the 2% change in the radiative budget associated with doubling CO2), evidence suggests that the oceans were unfrozen and the temperature was not very different from today’s. No greenhouse gas solution has worked, but a negative cloud feedback does.”
As I said elswhere:
Despite a substantial increase in the power of the sun over billions of years the
temperature of the Earth has remained remarkably stable. My proposition is that
the reason for that is the existence of water in liquid form in the oceans combined
with a relatively stable total atmospheric density. If the power input from the sun
changes then the effect is simply to speed up or slow down the hydrological cycle.
An appropriate analogy is a pan of boiling water. However much the power input
increases the boiling point remains at 100C. The speed of boiling however does
change in response to the level of power input. The boiling point only changes if
the density of the air above and thus the pressure on the water surface changes. In
the case of the Earth’s atmosphere a change in solar input is met with a change in
evaporation rates and thus the speed of the whole hydrological cycle keeping the
overall temperature stable despite a change in solar power input.
from here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5497
Very well said, but will any descision maker, or anyone from the MSM report it!!!
Owen
Very well said, but will any descision maker listen, or anyone from the MSM report it!!!
Owen
Sounds a very sensible and level headed approach, so he will probably get called all sorts of names and threatened in many ways.
Particularly liked this statement,
Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
Especially the last bit.
James
The voice of reason.
I’ve always enjoyed his presentations.
And Susan Hockfield (MIT President) is on record for crying climate catastrophe wolf – along with her friend Jeffrey Immelt at GE.
Both no doubt stand to gain enormously from research funding and green energy related subsidies.
MIT was honored by a US Presidential visit in October 2009 – no doubt they got some thanks for their good work promoting the CAGW cause.
So transparently corrupt and so utterly disgusting.
Lindzen speaks the truth. The deniers IMO are the warmists who must deny a compelling list of contrary observations in order to have faith in the “model” predictions.
I thought Professor Lindzen’s summary of the issues at dispute was excellent, but he missed some points he could have made in responses. For instance much was made of the fact that there are currently about twice as many record highs as record lows. While attempts are made to adjust global average temperature anomaly for the urban heat island effect, these records are not so adjusted and might well be significantly explained by the UHI. Another point I wish Lindzen had made in response to the positive feedback from water vapor, was that the increases in precipitation are a negative feedback that is under represented in the models by a factor of two or three (per Wentz) and of course the increases in water vapor probably also impact cloud cover and type. So despite the positive feedback from water vapor, NET feedback may be negative, and Lindzen mentioned data that indicated the net feedback might be negative.
“Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves.” And as a tax payer/consumer, I’m willing pay for honest research.
“I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.” I hope it’s that far out in human years.
This is a great presentation by Dr Lindzen. Another indication of the wheels coming off the CAGW bus is this from the mainstream comic strip, ‘Pearls Before Swine’, today’s strip Nov. 11, http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/
My favorite quote from Lindzen’s presentation-
“Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual…”
Definition of sentient- –adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
Antonyms- ignorant, unaware, unfamiliar, uninformed, unknowledgeable, unwitting, impassive, indifferent, senseless, unconscious, unmindful, unresponsive
Used in a sentence-
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists (CACA’s) are not sentient individuals.
Marvelous excerpts! The link to the PDF version does not seem to work.
An excellent post!
What permission needs to be obtained to send a copy to the UK government, who are intent on spending £18 billion p.a. of money borrowed by UK taxpayers in order to combat non-existent AGW?
If Prof Lindzen would do this himself it would carry much more weight.
REPLY: His testimony is a matter of public record, thus public domain. Send it to anyone, anywhere. – Anthony
Greed feedbacks Greed, Global warmers feedback Global warmers, Craziness feedbacks Craziness , thus nuts begin to reproduce exponentially, unless sanity stops it. Common hard working people must restore common sense and sanity, characteristics which are not usually found among not working people or, more precisely, among the sons and daughters of “Mommy and Daddy” , the so called “pseudo-intelligentsia” and politicians by inheritance.
However, what remains unexplainable and deserves research is the most weird behavior of those who fund these craziness, people who after achieving several or hundreds of billions, obtained by them or by their parents or grandparents, try to get much more billions and trillions, though this will not give them a more happy life and turn them into immortal beings, and what is worst, it is really impossible to understand why, at a certain point in their peculiar and leisure existence,they develop the urgent need to “change the world” according to their nanny fantasies and, in order to achieve this goal, make use (thanks to their inexhaustible wallets) of known national and international institutions, NGO’s funded also by them or their employees, and pretend, in an incredible madness, to govern upon the whole world.
This is what is behind this mind alteration and it should be stopped.
Does anyone have a link to his written testimony? Or is that the pdf?
Troels
REPLY: Yes, that’s the PDF I supplied. – Anthony
Excellent summary.
As the incoming energy increases so does the energy loss. The balance is maintained.
Historically climates have been warmer and colder and solar radiance has been fairly constant. Other cycles control climate not some trace gas.
Used in a sentence-
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists (CACA’s) are not sentient individuals.
Great acronym, specially if you look it up in a Spanish dictionary :-).
Seriosly, it is always a pleasure reading/listening to Dr. Lindzen. He has made his point on negative cloud feedbacks many times before, but his presentations are maybe too technical to be easily reproduced by the MSM. Assuming no bias, that is.
Dr. Lindzen once again properly articulates the issue. He always does such a great job. I’m not too overly optimistic about this setting, though. I seriously doubt many he was speaking to have the ability to digest and comprehend the meaning of his words, and those few that do, are more concerned about whether they look good for the cameras and getting re-elected than actually doing something positive for this nation. I wish I were wrong, but time and again we see that congress usually misses the mark. I am, however, optimistic about the overall direction of the debate. But, to get a message through to this group of people, their constituency is voice that has the best chance of getting heard.
Today’s installment of the Cancun Week special is available at
http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/
It’s an assessment of the political approach by China to Cancun.
Pointman
Well said Dr Lindzen.
From this layman’s perspective, the planet Earth seems to have a dynamically stable climate despite 4 billion plus years of untold disruptions. That implies a negative feedback somewhere and the likely suspect is H2O.
What’s not to love about this man.
I consider his a true HERO of our insane, post-normal times.
More power to your elbow Richard!
Extend unto them, a reasoned and rational scientific synopsis and in so doing, drive the alarmists out the ‘temple’, Dr. Lindzen!
Logic?…..science?…….rationale?
They wont know what is hitting ’em.
Lindzen is a Classic! Would that we had a few 10’s of thousands more like him.