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)
I found this paragraph a classic:
“However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt.”
MartinGAtkins,
As long as we understand each other.
;^)
Jeremy (07:01:27) :
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.
The AGW exercise teaches us something about models. Specifically that models of complex systems fail with regularity. And because models (aka sims) are created by people they are subject to bias. In this case a heavy political bias against western interests. This gives substance to the idea that the behavior of august institutes and governments are little more than components of a flawed model itself.
The only problem with MIT’s backing alternative energy research and development is its unfortunate link to global warming. We need to develop non-fossil sources of energy regardless of climate. MIT has been forced to back the failed AGW campaign in exchange for government/industry favor.
“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.”
The reason is not hard to find. The high values come from computer models which contain the unproven assumption of net positive feedbacks. Also, I would hesitate to call this a consensus. There are a number of reputable climate scientists who reject the positive feedback hypothesis, including Spencer, Christy, Eschenbach as well as Lindzen. It’s just that the IPCC will not include any papers that don’t conform to the warming hypothesis.
But you knew that already, didn’t you?
Sandy (02:57:28) : I initially made the mistake that the climate modelers were asserting overall positive feedback as well, and concluded that this was impossible, as you do, because it would already have created a runaway effect.
However, that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is that there are positive feedbacks in an overall negative feedback system, which increases the gain at low frequencies, hence the sensitivity to forcings.
Take the simple system H(s) = 1/(s – eps), where s is the Laplace variable and eps is a positive constant. Stabilize it with a negative feedback K > eps. The closed loop is now Hcl(s) = K/(s + K-eps). The dc gain is K/(K-eps) > 1. As eps increases, the dc gain is amplified.
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.
Overall positive feedback is disproved by the stability of the climate to date. The question is whether internal positive feedback is causing amplification of the sensitivity to CO2 forcing. Lindzen is saying that, no, the internal feedback which is modeled as a critical amplifier in all the models is, in fact, negative. In the example I gave Sandy above, the dc closed loop gain is K/(K+eps) < 1 rather than what you get with positive feedback. The AGW hypothesis relies on amplification by this particular mode to assert increased sensitivity to CO2 forcing. If Lindzen is right, then the AGW prognostication based on the models is wrong, or at least, erroneously concluded.
To: Scott A. Mandia (11:24:10) :
Mr. Mandia, I don’t mean to be rude but — don’t you read? below is a statement from the chris colose website you link to. As you can see he concludes that atmospheric sensitivity to doubling CO2 is 1 Cel. His article leaves out discussion of feedbacks because he was laying out a ‘simple’ model. He believes in positive feedbacks, with resulting sensitivity of 3 cel. Lindzen also believes in 1 Cel. sensitivity without feedbacks, but Lindzen has concluded clouds cause negative feedback, so the resulting sensitivity is .5 Cel. That’s what this whole debate is about, FEEDBACKS. Honest AGW believers and skeptics have common ground in the 1 Cel. physical effect of doubling CO2. The problem for alarmists is that a 1 Cel. increase is benign, and probably on balance beneficial to modern society; hence positive feedbacks and their claim to the end of the world. Please read your own link, Cheers.
Response– This is kind of tedious. Your 0.3% number is utterly meaningless. It is like saying a meter of sea level rise is small compared to ocean which is miles deep. This quantity is not useful to people on low-lying areas. The small numbers in consideration can be dangerous because we’re talking about the derivative, not absolute numbers. *Only* a 4 or 5 C decrease in global temperatures can give you another ice age, for context.
CO2 radiative forcing is a logarithm, but your number (100th of a degree Celsius!) comes out of nowhere, and is completely wrong. As I said, it is more like 1 C with a doubling of CO2 (without feedbacks) and more around 3 C with feedbacks.– chris
HI Chris:
Since you apparently believe in the 3C with feedbacks it should be easy for you to take a bet on whether or not the next decades avg temp will increase .2C. Looking at the IPCC numbers .2 would be somewhere near 1 SD south of the expected pace or an event that should happen about 1/6 th of the time. This would mean that someone who really believed in the IPCC model projections should be very very happy to bet even money on something they believe should happen 84% of the time.
So If you or anyone else that you know in the AGW community would like to place a substantial wager on either of the satellite data sets or even better, the implied OHC numbers generated by the ARGO network I would be more than happy to take the other side. (Sorry no GISSTEMP or HADCRUT silliness).
Thanks
david
“”” Rob Vermeulen (00:31:19) :
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? “””
Well we know pretty well just how much sunlight is reflected from the oceans; it is a fairly simple optical problem, that yields about 3% of the total incident solar energy getting reflected and 975 getting absorbed, so the earths deep oceans look pretty much like a black body to the sun; well a grey body with 0.97 emissivity over the solar spectrum range (say 0.1 to 4 microns).
We also know that water vapor is responsible for a global positive feedback effect, due to absorption of LWIR emitted from the surface; because that si why the earth is not an ice ball; “greenhouse effect” warming due to water vapor. Water vapor also has a negative feedback effect as well, in that incoming solar spectrum energy from about 0.75 out to around 4 microns is affected by several absorption nads that cover about half of that total spectral range. This capture of incoming solar energy results in less sunlight reaching the surface; and the oceans in particular; so it results in cooling of the surface. Yes it does result in heating of the atmosphere by that captured solar energy; but any resulting LWIR re-emission from the warmed atmosphere; can have no where near the warming effect that would have resulted from letting that solar energy reach the surface (oceans). For a start about half of that atmospheric warming energy is going to get lost back into space, and less than half of it should make it to the surface.
That which does make it to the surface has a vastly diffrerent effect on the surface (oceans) than does the solar energy. The downward LWIR around 10.1 micorns or so, is strongly absorbed by liquid water, in about the top 10 microns or so of the sea surface; the solar 4 micron stuff is even more strongly absorbed.
This concentration the the LWIR absorption in the very surface of the water results in rather prompt evaporation of higher energy molecules from the surface; so the Downward IR tends to result in increased evaporation; along with the transport of a lot of latent heat of evaporation into the atmosphere; where ordinary convection results in transporting it to higher qaltitude where clouds can form, and the latent heat can be dumped out as the vapor liquefies (around 545 cal/gram) with the possibility of another 80 cal/gm when the liquid droplets freeze.
It is those clouds which form solely as a result of the physical properties of water; that results in the negative feedback; by reflecting a lot of sunlight off the cloud tops back into space (albedo), and blocking further sunlight from reaching the ground; particularly with clouds containing precipitable water. With the present orbital and solar output conditions; the water cycle seems to reach a dynamic balance with about 50% of the earth surface covered in clouds at any given time.
I would say the whole system is sitting at a quite stable state; about which it will drift due to chaotic weather events.
@ur momisugly NK (12:40:55) :
I am quite aware of what climate sensitivity means.
I chose to link to CC’s discussion because he did a nice job of discussing feedbacks. I chose to link to Bony et al. because they have reviewed the literature and conclude the following feedbacks (understanding all of the caveats related to estimating these feedbacks):
Water vapor: 1.80 +/- 0.18 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lapse rate: -0.84 +/- 0.26 Wm^-2 K^-1
Clouds: 0.69 +/- 0.38 Wm^-2 K^-1
Albedo: 0.26 +/- 0.08 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lindzen’s 0.5 is quite an outlier.
Anyone got a verified source for that 1922 US Weather Bureau report? I’d love to spread that around, with proof it’s from a real report. 🙂
Here’s a more detailed version.
“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from US Consul
Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate
conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
“Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met
with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth
of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great
masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers
have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are
found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and
smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being
encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
MartinGAtkins,
If you are not scared by the fact that you live on a planet, then most certainly
you take temperature for granted.
Only a fool would do that.
Professor Lindzen’s data seems to blow the socks off the AGW theory. Unless his results are proven wrong by other scientists it would seem to leave the AGW crowd with two options; 1) abandon AGW theory or 2) ignore Lindzen’s work. My guess is they will choose door #2.
I think Professor Lindzen is being rather subtle when he uses the title “Deconstructing global warming”.
IMHO a more descriptive title would be “Demolishing AGW”.
rbateman: 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.
Hear, hear.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Scott A. Mandia (17:38:20) :
@ur momisugly NK (12:40:55) :
I am quite aware of what climate sensitivity means.
I chose to link to CC’s discussion because he did a nice job of discussing feedbacks. I chose to link to Bony et al. because they have reviewed the literature and conclude the following feedbacks (understanding all of the caveats related to estimating these feedbacks):
Water vapor: 1.80 +/- 0.18 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lapse rate: -0.84 +/- 0.26 Wm^-2 K^-1
Clouds: 0.69 +/- 0.38 Wm^-2 K^-1
Albedo: 0.26 +/- 0.08 Wm^-2 K^-1
Lindzen’s 0.5 is quite an outlier.
Have you looked at the PDF presentation, link above in the post?
The numbers you give are from climate models .
The crux of the presentation is in the last figure, which plots the results of an equation on which the models and data are evaluated and the small sensitivity comes from where the data cross the curve. The models cross the curve at a different point than the data.
It is the CERES data that give an outlier.
Who wins?
Models or data?
Exactly, anna. Lindzen makes a such a strong case because he uses measurements to calculate sensitivity. Thus, if some here say they can’t imagine a negative feedback my answer would be: Start looking. The data shows there is one.
A scary global warming story( with positive feedback)
Time:18,000 B.C. Ice age humans gather around their Shaman and asking him: Oh all knowing Nesnah, please tell us what our future will bring. Not good, said Nesnah. We reached the tipping point. We are at the end of Milankovitch cycle.The sun will shine a little bit stronger and the ice will start to melt. No big loss, said the ice age humans, we have plenty ice an we can use a little bit more sunshine. Aha, said Nesnah, but you are forgetting positive feedback.When the ice melts, the albedo is reduced and you will get even more warming and more ice melting and it will go on until all the ice is gone. How will build your igloos without any ice? With the polar bears all gone where will you get your furs to protect you? I tell you, we are facing a bleak and terrible future.
Vincent (10:46:58) 28 Oct
Couldn’t agree more. Its frustrating to hear experimental data challenged with the “the models dont predict it” argument. It is indeed a complete logical and scientific fallacy to reject experimental measurements on the basis that one cant find an explanation or a forcing for it on the basis of your preconceptions of the system. This is putting the cart before the horse. Indeed nonlinear systems have intrinsic oscillations including moving between attractors, which require no role of external forcing.
There is evidence that climatic fluctuations such as of global temperature show non-equilibrium pattern dynamics. What is diagnostic of non-equilibrium emergent pattern? One strong indicator is fractal character, measured by making the log-log plot and looking for linearity. This relates to the distribution of magnitude of changes: very steep changes occur very rarely (e.g. glacial to interglacial slopes), smaller incremental changes more frequently, with a log-log relation.
For example, take the Petit 1999 deuterium temperature reconstruction from the Vostok core going back 420,000 years. You can look at the difference (change) measured between neighboring core data points going back (or forward) in time. Then plot the nat log of point to point deg C change with nat log of frequency. What you get is:
Change between consecutive data points deg C,Frequency,NatLog of change,NatLog of frequency
0.1,2074,-2.30258,7.63723
0.2,322,-1.60944,5.77455
0.3,285,-1.20397,5.65249
0.4,198,-0.91629,5.28827
0.5,162,-0.69315,5.08760
0.6,82,-0.51083,4.40672
0.7,54,-0.35667,3.98898
0.8,49,-0.22314,3.89182
0.9,37,-0.10536,3.61092
1,19,0,2.94444
1.1,8,0.09531,2.07944
1.2,8,0.18232,2.07944
1.3,9,0.26236,2.19722
y = -2.1052x + 3.0077
R2 = 0.9305
x: nat log of change
y: nat log of frequency
So with an R2 of 0.93 we have what is effectively the fractal dimension of Vostok temperature change of 2.105. The temporal changes in temperature do appear to show fractal character thus evidence that global temperatures are controlled by processes which possess non-linear / non-equilibrium emergent pattern.
@ur momisugly anna v (23:34:45) and peeke (00:53:42) :
Yes, these numbers are from modeling various feedbacks. However, model parameterization is not arbitrary. These values are based upon observations and the current understanding of the process being considered. The Bony et al. paper includes obervations, physical understanding, and model results to attempt to determine how well models are handling feedbacks.
The science here is real and these values, although not perfect, are at the very least, going to be the correct sign. If so, then Lindzen’s 0.5C sensitivity is quite an outlier.
tom
Nice one! Another scary climate change story:
A group of bacteria huddle together in an anoxic pond – the date is about 2 billion BC. They are dicsussing some alarming reports that the toxic gas oxygen is beginning to increase in the atmosphere. They also consulted their shaman about this. The first thing we must do, he replied, is to classify this oxygen as a pollutant. Then we must set percentage limits on the growth of these undesirable blue-green bacteria that are causing the problem by their extravagant consumption of resources and irresponsible emission of oxygen.
We must restrict these blue-greens, the shaman concluded, since they threaten our way of life. Regardless of what consequences there are to the rest of the biosphere, us anaerobic bacteria will be marginalised to the sidelines of a future oxygen-rich world. We cant let that happen!
Scott A. Mandia (06:12:13) :
@ur momisugly anna v (23:34:45) and peeke (00:53:42) :
Yes, these numbers are from modeling various feedbacks. However, model parameterization is not arbitrary. These values are based upon observations and the current understanding of the process being considered. The Bony et al. paper includes obervations, physical understanding, and model results to attempt to determine how well models are handling feedbacks.
The science here is real and these values, although not perfect, are at the very least, going to be the correct sign. If so, then Lindzen’s 0.5C sensitivity is quite an outlier.
Look at the last figure of the presentation found in http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf , page 48 :
The models are there with their sensitivities. It is the data of ERBE-CERES that hit the curve at a different point than the models.
You could criticize the theoretical formula which is described in the presentation, and find an error in its formulation, if youcan. You cannot say “the value from the data is an outlier”, when the outliers are the values of the modelsas far as this simple formula goes.
Scott:
Do you have any thoughts as to why there is not a single AGW supporter willing to make a substantial wager on the outcome of the IPCC predictions for the next 10 years. I am giving even money on something that ought to happen 5/6 times. Why do you think there are no takers?
Could it be that AGW supporters don’t actually believe their own models and instead are merely in it for the financial gain which comes from the continuation political gravy train?
If I had some model which predicted something would occur 5/6 times and someone offered to bet even money against it, I’d certainly be happy to put on a big position.
Scott–
What is the significance of an outlier as compared to other models? Answer, are the other models right or not. Lindzen here makes a much stronger case that observational data shows the qualities of cloud formation and albedo, and that data outweighs theoretical constructs of water vapor creation and ocean heat content, hence he concludes that the positive feedback models are erroneous. IF Lindzen is right about that (I agree that can’t be proven yet), being an outlier makes him correct vis a vis the erroneous models. The fact that he is an ‘outlier’ as compared to other models is irrelevant, because you presuppose that the assumptions imbedded in the other models are correct. That is why AGW modelling can never be science; change the assumptions and the answers the models pump out also change. Sorry you make no pertnent point.
“”” NK (08:39:21) :
Scott–
What is the significance of an outlier as compared to other models? Answer, are the other models right or not. Lindzen here makes a much stronger case that observational data shows the qualities of cloud formation and albedo, and that data outweighs theoretical constructs of water vapor creation and ocean heat content, hence he concludes that the positive feedback models are erroneous. IF Lindzen is right about that (I agree that can’t be proven yet), being an outlier makes him correct vis a vis the erroneous models. The fact that he is an ‘outlier’ as compared to other models is irrelevant, because you presuppose that the assumptions imbedded in the other models are correct. That is why AGW modelling can never be science; change the assumptions and the answers the models pump out also change. Sorry you make no pertnent point. “””
Try reading Wentz et al “How much more Rain Will Global Warming Bring ?” in SCIENCE July 07/2007
The only thing Wentz doesn’t say in his paper; but which is an obvious and inescapable conclusion from his observational measurments; is that a one deg C rise in mean global temperature; which he observes results in a 7% increase in total global evaporation; total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation; must also imply an increase (maybe even about 7%) in total global precipitatble cloud cover. Where I come from, it is fashionable to have somewhat dark clouds when one has precipitation. Not only do those cloud (increases) raise the albedo of the earth and reflect more sunlight back into space; but that dark cloud also blocks additional solar radiation from reaching the surface; which is 73% strongly absorbing ocean. It wouldn’t even take a 7% increase in precipitable cloud cover globally to create more than enough negative feedback cooling to swamp the original 1 deg C temperature rise.
A one deg C rise out of say 288Kelvins (0.00347) would require an increase in total ground level insolation of about 0.0139; roughly 1.4%.
Cloud cover is about 50% on average, so a 7% increase is five times what is needed in increased insolation to cause a 1deg C rise.
TO: George E. Smith (10:43:21) :
Your negative feedback suggestion is far more plausible to me than the AGW positive feedback theory. However my skeptism requires me to remind you your plausible suggestion has not been proven by scientific method. The scale of climate, coupled with the distinct possibility there is no feedback mechanism of any kind because the entire climate system is chaotic, gave the AGW alarmists the wiggle room to spread their nonsense. That is one reason how this AGW thing morphed into a political game rather than a scientific issue.