Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming


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.


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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eduardo Ferreyra

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.

Klimate Kip

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…

Gregg E.

Here’s the latest broadside from the cult of AGW.
Have at it.


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.

Jeff B.

Hansen et. al. have no clothes.

anna v

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.

Patrick Davis
Patrick Davis

OT, related to another thread at WUWT…
They appear to have launched an investigation into that TV propaganda ad recently reported here.

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

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.

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

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

Dr. Gerhard Loebert

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 ) 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, 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 ).
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 ). 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 ), 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

Rob Vermeulen

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?

Gene Nemetz

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!

Gregg E.

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?

Phillip Bratby

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,
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


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:
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.

Roger Knights

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, And that 49-page collection of powerpoint slides is too voluminous to print out. I hope there will be a more compact version somewhere.

Rhys Jaggar

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??


@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.

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.

Alan the Brit

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.

John Barrett

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 ?


” 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.


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?

P Wilson

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


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

Dr. Lindzen’s paper is now uploaded in our website, 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!


I love this part of the presentation:
Looks like the Arctic will be ice free by 1930.

4 billion

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”


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.

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).

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;


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

Patrick Davis

“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.

Tom in Florida

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.

Dave Morgan

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

Steve Keohane

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:

Rob Vermeulen

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.


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.


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.


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 ;).

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.


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


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.


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.
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?


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

Jim Clarke

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!


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.