Lindzen's Climate Sensitivity Talk: ICCC June 2, 2009

Adolfo Giurfa (11:03:04) :

MartinGAtkins (10:36:24) :It took 72 years to communism to end in soviet Russia.

We must above all else be willing to protect our democratic right to determine the nature of the government that manages our affairs even if this could cost our lives. The people of the EU have failed in this regard and have lost all control of the institutions that should serve the people. The result is poverty.
The EU will collapse for the same reasons that all bureaucratic dictatorships do.
Without funding from democratic capitalist countries the UN becomes nothing more than the yapping dog of failed states and unhinged minorities.
Time is not on their side.

I have no professional experience of the subjects discussed on this site, but I have become an addict and appreciate that there are many realists out there who find this site their family home. Well done, it is good to have such a forum.
My niaive view is that there are two sources of heat in this solar system as far as the earth is concerned. One is the sun, which is totally dominant, the other is the relatively minor but more local geothermal effect and the latter has a local influence such as in volcanic regions and a more general effect which is probably influenced by the gravitational and magnetic fields of the sun as well as those of the earth.
The solar effects will include radiation at all frequencies. I’m not convinced that we understand all the possible relationships between radiation frequency and climate. Then we have the solar wind with its charged particles, the changing magnetic fields, the possible relationship between solar cycle duration and climate and the influence of radiation from deep space. Do we understand all of these? I promise not to bring that massive component, dark matter, into the discussion.
Then we have the debates. I doubt if climatologists can agree on anything. But I do agree with Pamela when she says that a hot water bottle filled with hot air or CO2 will be useless compared with one filled with water. The GHG role of CO2 does not sound very credible compared with other possibilities.
I tend to think that there are masses of cyclical trends and every now and then the positive ones are in sync with each other and then with time, a more random pattern takes over. If we take temperature data from the nineties we could ‘prove’ that the sales of mobile phones give a strong correlation with global temperature and therefore the phones caused global warming. (All that hot air.) It is easy to take linear parts of cycles and assume relationships and cause and effect, but it is probably not correct.
Computing did not really take off until the CP/M operating system about 20 years ago and then windows 3 around 1993. It is amazing that computers have been around for less time than we think. So the seriously large databases must be much younger than that. Computer modelling has not been around for very long in climate timescales and neither has the data. Then we have the question about the reliability and the quality of the data, including misleadingly simple things like temperature measurement. Against that background, it is amazing that an entire industry has grown with people typing algorithms into machines that produce predictions of climate timescale magnitude on the basis of a relatively few dodgy numbers with even more questionable assumptions.
In my experience, the big, obvious causes are usually the cause. The sun is the likely culprit where warming is concerned. I would look at the additive effects of cyclical events. Also, I have heard a lot about mini ice ages when we have prolonged solar minima, what about mini heat waves when we have a quick succession of hyperactive cycles?

Maybe this will not be welcome on a scientific blog but I think the main point between AGW and its dectractors is this:
AGW makes humans the center of the universe, a rather perverse ending to the Copernican revolution, but fittingly so. GW is our fault, goes the theory, so we can end it. We can do something, if we all band together (all 6 billion of us) as one. It’s an intoxicating thought and I can see the appeal. But it is ultimately vain. All of human ingenuity combined across the globe for decades and decades would do little to blunt the overriding and episodic power of the natural world in which we live. This theory, therefore, essentially amounts to humanity worshipping itself, to which end it has employed that most human of endeavors: the quest to know (science). Thus behold the unstated mantra of AGW: “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god!” If we just had the right people, in the right place, doing the right things, at the right time – goes the theory – all our problems would disappear and paradise would slowly unfold before our eyes. But that is not not so, nor will it ever be. That is, in fact, the cry of every fascist/statist/communist/etc. leader throughout all of history. Humans have remade the world, after a fashion, but they cannot remake themselves.
Principles about human nature, which some call religion, are not subject to science and its laws. Science can shed light on their periphery, but ultimately it is beyond the aim and scope of science. And that is also true of AGW, though it professes to be rooted in science. It is not. But as it cannot call itself a religion, that other of most human endeavors, it must remain as cloaked as it can in science. That is why explanations using strict scientific methodology usually succeed in stripping it bare, but cannot answer sufficiently the overwhelming propagandic effect that making humans the center of the universe has on the human mind or soul. Whatever the religious beliefs of its detractors, they remain rooted (for now) in the idea that humanity is not the be-all and end-all of all of our problems. They may differ as to the answer to them, but they recognize that humanity and the sciences we have developed do not answer all the questions there is about life. In essence, they know that humanity is not the center of the universe, and thus (as is often found on this blog) are more prone to be faithful to the principles first established by the Copernican revolution, which was more of a revolution in human world-view than it was in science itself.
Now we are slipping back into the darkness of those pre-Copernican days, except that the packaging is different. Then it was the church’s teachings. Now it is political-scientific consensus. Ultimately, they both amount to the same thing. It’s all about power, order, and control.
Listen to this from Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism: “About ten years ago I went on a junket to Switzerland and attended a talk with the CEO of Nestlé. Listening to him, it became very clear to me that he had little to no interest in free markets or capitalism properly understood. He saw his corporation as a “partner” with governments, NGOs, the U.N., and other massive multinationals. The profit motive was good for efficiency and rewarding talent, but beyond that, he wanted order and predictability and as much planning as he could get. I think that mindset informs the entire class of transnational progressives, the shock troops of what H. G. Wells hoped would lead to his liberal-fascist “world brain.” And then he also says this: “contemporary progressivism is a political religion with its roots in German state theory, sharing a close family resemblance to fascism. Among the anatomical and genetic similarities: cult of unity, sacralization of politics, philosophical pragmatism, corporatism, relativism, Romanticism, hero-worship, collectivism, and so on. And out of nowhere comes a guy who campaigns as a secular messiah, spouting deeply spiritualized political rhetoric, claims the Progressives as his inspiration, and proudly sees himself as carrying out FDR’s mission. I haven’t counted them, but I’d guess I’ve received a couple hundred e-mails from readers telling me how they thought the whole book was written with Obama in mind, even though I finished it before he was even ahead in the Democratic primaries.”
And that is what the game is all about, ladies and gentlemen. As the bard would say, the game is afoot.

I forgot to mention, that electronic feedback amplifiers, usually are operated only in a linear mode; we don’t have a lot of logarithmic non linear feedback electronic systems. Good luck with that CO2 doubling log response.
Low open loop gain amplifiers with bipolar inputs. But we do try to limit the segment of the input curve used to avoid as much as possible the log response. Which is also temperature sensitive. Heh.
But in general you are correct.

George,
The simple model using a “climate sensitivity” for the surface temperature addresses secular changes on a long timescale for a climate which is otherwise assumed to be stable (a highly damped oscillator, if you prefer to think of it that way).
Nature doesn’t care whether you try to shoehorn its description into linear circuit theory because that’s how you prefer to think about it, so arguing semantics about “proper” feedback topologies is way beside the point.

kmye (15:36:48) wrote: “Does anyone have a reference, preferably to part of an IPCC report, that supports the claim this was actually part of the stated reasoning of the IPCC?”
Dr. Lindzen was, and I believe still is, an IPCC scientist and is as good a reference as you can get.
I have the greatest admiration for Richard Lindzen. There is probably no one, with the possible exception of Michael Mann who arguably deserves it, who has been the subject of more personal attacks in the field of climate science. LIndzen has stood up to the attacks well and has not let them intimidate him.

Correction: Dr. Lindzen worked on the 2001 IPCC report only. My assertion stands, however, that he is as good a reference as you can find on what the reasonings of the IPCC are. You will probably find that the IPCC describes their reasoning differently than Dr. Lindzen has, but I would trust his description over theirs, given their record and obvious investment in creating a sense of urgency over a problem that now appears to be dissipating.

Ric Werme (14:44:10) :
Well, it is the third ICCC, so they aren’t too set in their ways. I think one reason is to have it in Washington, which has the greatest concentration of influential people who need to be influenced themselves. There may also be a dose of there wasn’t enough time in March for all the people with something worthwhile to say to have time to say it.
There may also be timing issues of wanting to get a conference before the next Copenhagen conference and wanting to announce the NIPCC report.

Indeed Rick. At least we now have one politician that is prepared to listen to both sides of the argument:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25579732-5013871,00.html
I hope presenters at the Washington conference were convincing and lifted their game over some of the presentations I saw from the Heartland Institute March conference. As some-one pointed out earlier – it not so much the content, it now about SELLING the message and scientists are not always the best people to do this.

“Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.”
Lovely!

“” Innocentiousxii (14:23:27) :
I love the powerpoint though I must admit some of it I had to break down the math for ( what can I say I don’t use equations that consist of feedback effects on some days ) however I appreciate how in simplistic term the whole issue was presented.””
This is one reason why I wish a full length documentary featuring Richard Lindzen would be made and aired in America—because he knows soo much and is smart enough to make what he knows simple to understand for the average person.
Does anyone reading this comment have enough money to fund such a documentary? If so you could try to contact this man, Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, who directed the excellent documentary featuring Henrik Svensmark, “The Cloud Mystery” :
http://www.thecloudmystery.com/The%20Director.html

Just Want Truth… (18:38:15) :
It could also feature Roy Spencer.
Regards,
The commenter formerly known as ‘Just Want Truth…’