Quick post, I’m in between sessions here in Washington DC.
Dr. Richard Lindzen just gave a keynote talk on climate sensitivity and the state of climate science. Here is the powerpoint below:
Powerpoint link, “hot off the press” so to speak, minutes old.
More later
pyromancer76 (09:18:07) :
Perhaps they might make these tanks inoperable.
Ha. Shows you have never been in a repressive regime that used tanks. The way to make tanks inoperable is to throw sugar in the reservoir :). Old lessons, like making molotofs. 🙂
Pamela, I agree in the result but not the content. It is not the physics or scientific arguments that carry the day, but the politics and politicians behind them.
The same people would easily be behind creationism, with the same argument : it is the only theoretical solution that God made everything, what else is there?
I’ve taken out what seems to be the key graph of Dr Lindzen’s presentation at my blog.
http://www.di2.nu/200906/02a.htm
A fine overview that should not “offend the educated classes and the East and West coasts.” No more than Nicolas Sarkozy appointing an eminent alarmist-turned- skeptic to the French environmental leadership position.
As Pamela notes it is a battle now between a machine and good science. Truth and fabrication. The machine has money, media, alarmism and a political agenda. They drown out the truth with ever-increasing hype and exaggeration. But in so doing, they make themselves and others fools. Penn and Teller (Being Green, “Bullsheit” on Showtime) did a show on how easy it is to shame people into buying carbon credits. Armed with a clip board and calculator a charming woman (a shill) stopped shoppers and offered to calculate the “carbon footprint” of their purchases. Shoppers were then given an opportunity to purchase carbon “credits” to offset their greed.
Two out of three shoppers bought credits on the spot. Thus creating two groups in need of lampooning. Alarmist pols, scientists and MoveOners. And the general public for being so easily shamed and duped. All in all great material for comics and satirists. Stan notes we might do well to lower the slide rules for a moment and skewer the absurd behavior of people buying the AGW propaganda. It is a machine, and therefor a simple well-placed monkey wrench can bring it to a halt. That wrench is healthy skepticism, good science, and the sword of humor.
NormD writes “Why is there a second ICCC conference just a few months after the last ICCC conference? I cannot find any explanations. Isn’t this abnormal”
I assume you are referring to the UNFCCC conferences, building up to the big one in Copenhagen this December. Yes, holding so many conferences is highly unusual. However, the explanation is quite simple. Before the Copenhagen conference takes place, if there is to be some form of international agreement, the basic outline of what the agreement is going to has to be in place long before the conference starts. Otherwise, there is no time for governments to agree the final communique. At the present time there is simply no agreement on what should be concluded at Copenhagen. The differences between the developed world, and the developing world are, quite simply, too huge. So there are lots of meetings to try and sort out the differences. However, far from bringing the sides closer together, all that is happening is that they are getting further apart. So we can expect even more meetings. What has happened is that the developed world has painted itself into a corner. By loudly proclaiming that there is a crisis because of AGW, they have implicitly agreed that the developed world is the cause of the problem. The cost to reduce CO2 emissions is absolutely enormous, and we cannot afford it. But the developing world is demanding that not only must we solve the problem, but we must also pay to help the poorer nations come up with part of the solution. A doubly whammy we simply cannot afford. Hence the major disagreement. Hence all the conferences.
“………. the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.”
“……… but global warming/climate change – – – has a life of its own – quite removed from science.”
That is why I’ve said for years, we (who ever WE is) are fighting the wrong battle. (Yes, “we” need to prove the junk “science” wrong. But that was done years ago.) It’s NOT about science, it’s NOT about power, it’s NOT about control/freedom, and it’s NOT even about politics – directly. It’s about MONEY and ego! And it’s about who can lie the best to get more money; the NASA “scientist” who has staked his high paying job on AGW to the point of having to modify the history of temps, the “politician” who so desperately needs to stay in the limelight to get high(er) priced speaking engagements that he’ll not even publically admit the main chart in his PP presentation is wrong, much less debate the whole issue in public, the “professor” who has built his department, staffed with under-grads and post docs, on federal grants and wants more funds to continue his “work” even though he KNOWS they will NEVER be able to create a workable computer model of the global environment, the BIG energy company CEO who knows it was NEVER about CO2/oil/coal but argues for “more” of X while “working” under the table with “the powers that be” to assure that HIS company is the ones providing the “new” energy, the oil sheik, the global financer, the politician, the MSM editor/reporter, the environmentalist, Etc., Etc. It’s a whole industry onto itself.
And Pamela you’re right (again) but the money train of AGW has grown so large there is no stopping it, regardless the size of any real “science tank” we can field. Cap-and-trade is NOT coming, it’s here! Obama and his GLOBAL friends have already set-up a massive energy brokerage organization. Hell could freeze over and it would still be blamed on CO2/human activities/anything but natural causes, so as to make US pay (more) for energy. All the good science in the world isn’t going to change that. It’s a done deal. What we need to be doing is spending our personal energy on independence from “them”, not trying to prove them wrong, scientifically. And by “independence” I mean food, water AND energy.
MKE Bob
AGW’ers are the new religionists. The old religionists took anything they couldn’t understand and laid it at the feet of the Gods. The new religionists take anything they can’t understand and lay it at the feet of man.
My favorite alternative is “change in albedo”. One can explore the details of why or not, but everyone can understand cloud cover and reflecting sunlight and how cloudy days are cool days.
BTW Is that a small cycle 23 spot forming just South of the Solar equator, referring to location and magnetogram.
Excellent Lindzen’s talk; I would like to have heard his talk. I got stunned when I read from science magazine how a pair of “scientists” “debunked” the observations and experimentation of Svensmark on the correlation between cosmic rays and Earth’s climate by giving more credit to models than to reality. That means that AGW proponents take models more seriously than the nature itself. That’s not science, but fantasy; it’s like playing Nintendo.
It is not “their” science to be debunked but their system of beliefs. It is not a matter of scientific arguments but of a kind of theological discussion.
Their “prophet” is not a messiah after the merchants in god’s temple, but one of the merchants. 🙂
Well it will take me some time to try and digest all of those data graphs the good professor has presented to try and understand them; but there are two points that I am totally uncomfortable with; which convince me beyond any reasonable doubt, that Lindzen is correct when he says the standard global warming theory is wrong; of course it is wrong.
My first alarm bell goes off with his feedback formula which is fairly well known to people in the climate field; and is breathed like the daily oxygen by any analog circuit design engineer; such as me for example.
The equation Lindzen uses is a static equation; it has no time or frequency variables in it, and in any real feedback system; both the forward gain amplifier, and the feedback networkalways have a propagation delay.
The signal output doesn’t happen till some time later than the signal input, and the fedback signal summed into the input is also delayed from the output signal.
As a result, any real feedback system has a frequency response that depends on all of those delay processes; and in physical systems involving transport of thermal energies (heat flow), the delays are almost universally longer than the inherent speed of the forward amplifier itself, and they routinely lead to thermal; oscillation. The stability analysis of feedback systems is well understood, and they are known to be unstable if the loop gain is greater than one (and other conditions).
Well one of the tenets of climate feedback theses; particularly the water vapor feedback scenario, is that the feedback is the dominant factor.
If CO2 caused atmospheric and surface warming, were only enhanced by 5-10% by “water vapor positive feedback”, that would be entirely inconsequential in practical climate concerns; but the believers, think that the water vapor feedback is THE dominant effect; giving an effective amplifier inpur signal much greater than the initial CO2 driver.
Any such system, with the built in time delays, is pretty much guaranteed to be an oscillator and not an amplifier. So I simply don’t believe those feedback models, or the climate would be switching wildly between two limit saturation states of extreme heat or extreme cold.
My second discomfort is the very subject of Prof Lindzen’s talk; “climate sensitivity” which evidently is a creation of Arrhenius himself, who blessed us with his CO2 global warming thesis.
CS is (apparently) the increase in surface temperature (maybe lower troposphere ?) caused by the “forcing” due to doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Well the forcing mechanism, is the capture by GHG molecules of surface emitted long wave infra-red radiation, which for the CO2 component, is in the 13.5-16.5 micron wavelength band; nominally 15 microns.
So the model is very simple. Surface emits IR generally following some roughly black body spectrum; probably grey or colored by spectral emissivity; but generally following a fourth or fifth power of surface temperature (K). The CO2 absorbs some fraction of that depending on its abundance, and eventually conveys the energy to the atmospheric gases; which in turn re-radiate back to the surface, as well as out into space; and that extra blanketing effect results in a higher surface temperature by the “sensitivity” number.
So now we have a problem. The driving power for climate sensitivity is that original infra-red radiation from the surface, and over the surface of the earth, and with time during the year, that surface radiant emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude; over 12:1 in the extremes.
So doubling the CO2 does NOT raise the atmospheric temperature or surface temperature by any fixed temperature; it depends on where on earth you are.
So the “climate sensitivity” over Antarctica is as little as 12 times smaller than the “climate sensitivity” over the hottest North African tropical deserts; and everything in between.
Then it also depends on the nature of the surface terrain, and the particular thermal processes that occur there. Ocean, rain forest, alpine meadows, dry deserts, all react differently and so emit different amounts of Infrared , so the effect of CO2 doubling is a function of location and terrain, and lots of other factors.
To offer such a mechanism, as a global constant factor in the guise of “climate sensitivity”, is sheer nonsense; it’s not even vaguly scientific.
Worse yet, since it is time and place dependent, then even some sort of average or mean global value to slip in as a proxy for local climate sensitivity requires an eleaborate global sampoling process to derive some fictitious global mean. Please don’t ignore the Nyquist sampling theorem while doing that global sampling to determine the mean “climate sensitivity”.
“Climatology” will be doomed to remain kin to “economics” and “ancient astrology”, so long as this farce called “climate sensitivity” persists in being presented as the center piece of global warming climate science.
But I still want to understand all those fancy graphs and computer model outputs in Prof Lindzen’s Keynote speech.
George
RE Pamela’s point, well, we do have some artillery on our side. We can pick apart their “science” and various claims. Anthony has done ( and still does) a heroic job on that one, pertaining to the atmospheric temperature measurements.
There are dozens of AGWers’ predictions that have failed, and we can press those issues.
My small efforts on sea levels resulted in this post:
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea-level-surprises-at-hilo.html
It appears that the rise in sea level off the coast of Miami, FL is also suspect.
My post was sniped… I don’t know why.
Pamela, it’s not science anymore, it’s faith.
“The great trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason – but one cannot have both.”
RA Heinlein
I prefer reason, even though it leaves me with more questions about this world and our existence than there are answers for, but I doubt that most of the population agrees with me.
Ah dear William, but there you are wrong for making that assumption. Man, I gotta tell ya, I just hate assumptions. More often than not, an assumption gets you in to trouble.
Consider, the Earth (as with all planets in our solar system) has a gravitational pull on our Sun. This fact is how we are able to detect planets around other stars. Given that, can you really assume we have no affect on our Sun? We obviously have some affect. But to what limits do we affect our Sun? And in turn, can the affects we have on our Sun affect the Earth back again?
Assumptions are BAD! Never assume anything! Assumptions are precisely why the AGW topic even exists.
“”” NormD (08:47:43) :
Why is there a second ICCC conference just a few months after the last ICCC conference? I cannot find any explanations. Isn’t this abnormal? “””
Well science is not like the Olympic games. There are always new audiences, and new scientific results to report on.
So its 3 months or so since the last ICCC international conference; take a guess how many hours it has been since the last President Obama, Major News Teleprompter Reading, announcing his Bankrupty Restructuring Program (BRP) for Fly by Night Donut Industries ?
George
Ice ages begin when snowfall exceeds snowmelt each year.
One of the things we need to understand is fanatics don’t have time on their side. They need to push the belief that the enemy is at the gates. Any enemy will do so long as the propaganda pushes the urgency that doom is imminent if the fanatics warnings are not heeded.
Life goes on for non-fanatics and more mundane things fill their day such as their childrens health, paying their bills, food in their stomachs and a whole host of things that beset our human condition.
When the population realises that it is not the imaginary enemy at the gates that have deprived them of a tolerable existence and a reasonable expectation of life but the fanatics solutions to their own manufactured fear that has deprived them of all they can reasonably expect, they become cynical and mocking.
When the fanatics taste this they become even more convinced that their twisted ideology is not getting through to the ignorant peasants. They ramp up their propaganda with ever more absurd claims and threats to those who mock them.
The trouble is that it’s those “ignorant peasants” they wish to dominate that are doing the mocking.
Milwaukee Bob ,
Yes , it is all about the money . However , not much can happen without the political will to pass “green” legislation . If we stand up and shout we will be heard – not necessarily listened to , but heard . If we shout loud enough , others will hear us as well . Master Resource has a post regarding pro cap and trade efforts in Texas . Perhaps if we try those same tactics , we can get enough people on board – doing nothing will end in economic disaster .
Pamela Gray, Your comment: “Falsifying it without coming up with anything else is like trying to destroy a tank with a hammer” made me laugh. Here is an excerpt from my upcoming novel, The Austin Gun Club, where the hero tries exactly that. It’s partially based on an actual event at the battle of Salerno in 1943. Have faith.
Seemingly in one motion, Perkin slung his Thompson over his shoulder and pulled the heavy ten-kilogram sledge hammer from its clip on the side of the tank. Walking quickly to the front of the moving tank, he stood with one knee on the turret and one foot on the tank’s deck. The Texan raised the sledge high above his head and with great violence brought the hammer arcing down hard on the driver’s visor. The thick glass of the visor shattered and amid shouts from inside the panzer, the tank immediately spun wildly to the right and began to head back towards the other tanks. Perkin dropped the hammer on the deck of the tank and pulled his Thompson off his shoulder. He slammed the barrel of the weapon into the cracked visor, pulled the trigger and held it down. The Thompson bucked hard in his hands – it tended to climb but the barrel was wedged into the visor and wasn’t going anywhere. When the magazine emptied, Perkin could hear screaming and more shouts from inside the tank – he also noticed he was now exposed to the German gun line. As the German gunners saw him on the tank and began to fire at him, he slung his Thompson, grabbed the sledge again and scampered over the turret to the right side of the tank. He smashed the massive hammer down hard onto the coaxial machine gun. He thought that the barrel bent slightly from the force of the hit, although he knew that was unlikely – one more to go. He was about to smash the other machine gun when he heard the commander’s hatch opening. Perkin spun around and saw a hand with a Luger in it begin to emerge from the open crack of the hatch. As the Luger fired wildly, Perkin swung the sledge hammer down again, this time hitting the hatch lid as hard as he could. The tank commander screamed and dropped his pistol, his hand nearly severed at the wrist. Perkin dropped the hammer on the deck of the tank and was reaching for a grenade but the tanker, rightly believing that his crew’s survival depended on quickly securing his hatch, withdrew his mangled hand and slammed the hatch shut. Perkin grabbed the Luger and stuffed it down the front of his jacket before reaching for the handle of the sledge hammer again. It was almost time to leave – they were getting to the end of the American line and too close to the other tanks….
George, the reason that Prof Lindzen uses the feedback equation is that it’s the same one that Jim Hansen uses in his 1984 paper. Just Google “Hansen 1984” and it will come up with a NASA link where you can download the paper. It has remained essentially the same from this time on.
Quite so, Adolfo. It’s always been about emotion. I mean, how could one not want to “save the planet”? With that little phrase, they’ve setup the “us against them” paradigm, so that if you don’t agree with anything they say, you’re out ot destroy the planet. That’s not reason, that’s emotion.
Mitchel44 (10:15:16) :
I prefer reason, even though it leaves me with more questions about this world and our existence than there are answers for, but I doubt that most of the population agrees with me.
So do I. Faith doesn’t answer any questions, it just pretends to.
Bob, you could not be more correct! You are absolutely right on this! We need to remove ourselves from “them”, and let “them” bring themselves down.
Well said Bob!
Squidly (10:16:07) :
Consider, the Earth (as with all planets in our solar system) has a gravitational pull on our Sun. This fact is how we are able to detect planets around other stars. Given that, can you really assume we have no affect on our Sun? We obviously have some affect. But to what limits do we affect our Sun?
What you describe is that the planets have an influence on the orbit of the Sun, not on the Sun itself [except for sub-millimeter tides]. This is a very different thing.
MartinGAtkins (10:36:24) :It took 72 years to communism to end in soviet Russia…so, once you change for bad, it takes time to do the round trip, even the earth freezes they will blame it to “climate change”, that’s why they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change”…they are not fools.