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.
Read Dr. Lindzen’s entire presentation here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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 !!).
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.]
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.
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.
Pascvaks
– As demonstrated by your post.
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.
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…)
MartinGAtkins,
You are likely suffering the after effects of a humorectomy.
Pressed Rat (08:48:32) :
Pascvaks
– As demonstrated by your post.
_________________________
So true!
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?
” 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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
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 ]