Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
A commentary by Richard S. Lindzen in the WSJ
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.
The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.
That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”
The full article may be found here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If one has ever cited or worse, coauthored with Jones, Mann, Briffa et al, then these ‘scientists’ have a choice.
Get a flea dip, and hope their next paper with these frauds is not audited. Sever all ties and future works with the Team.
It will be telling to see who continues the fight for hiding the decline, data and methods for the team or who will develop their own open voice and breakthroughs. It is my opinion that climate science is a very young discipline. A young scientist has the opportunity to make a name for herself. Science has a way of eventually defining things, even uncertainty. It is OK to be uncertain. Redefine your hypothesis.
The scientific community is watching climate science ya know? The scientific community on the web is also very capable. We are not going away. We have engineers of all disciplines, quantum mechanics, chemists, physicists, geologists, programmers, botanists, the best statistician,
Jerry said show me the money. I say show me the calcs. Show us the engineering study which defines the increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2. Show us the climate model validation report. Show us all model verifications. Show us the data too.
When the young climate scientists do this, then they will again be practicing traditional science.
Youngsters, please don’t forget, the observed data is what it is. Please don’t rewrite our raw data because your unvalidated and unverified models with assumed boundary conditions say it is wrong.
It’s OK
test
More respected players will condemn the way science is practiced in East Anglia. William Connolly can be persuaded although he is protective of friends like Stephan Ramsdorf. The CRU crew scandal has inspired me to start a new blog @ur momisugly http://itsfunny.biz/blog1
I just found this. It’s a sort of tribute to the memory of John L. Daly.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly
His website was where I first began learning,about 10 years ago , that AGW was a fraud. The material is still timely, and essential to a good understanding of the scope of the problem.
http://www.john-daly.com/dalybio.htm
His passing was a huge loss, but his legacy lives on.
This piece from the Times of India should give Team Obama pause for concern as China and India prepare for hardball in Copenhagen …
Sounds to me like they have Obama all sized up. By the time they are done, I expect Team Obama to be yelling “Climate Fraud.”
Well said Dr. Lindzen, an easy read.
His point here,
“Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways”
,connects to my reading and watching the alarmists and a trend I have noticed emerging. I arrived at this point after watching the video of greenpeace, sierra club and center for american progress respond to climategate.
All the many observations the alarmist have been piling on over recent years and attributed to AGW are starting to replace the science they were originally pursuaded and long relying upon.
They seem to be now showing little interest in the validity of IPCC science, conclusions and modeling, saying there is so much observational evidence it doesn’t matter. The science is becoming subordinate to their imaginations. The Center For American progress guy inhis response to climategate pointed to the polar bears as evidence.
Geeze what is this? Are we being punked?
And let me tell you all, here in Oregon, their imaginations have connected everything imaginable. Somehow even more.
It’s worse than a religion or cult, IMO. This is something else.
This large global group has convinced themselves and each other of certainty in nearly eveything they see being effected by CO2 emissions. So who needs the science?
Conversations with them have grown to the ultimate go no where. It’s nearly impossble to get direct engagement of specific issues without them wandering off in a variety of strawman questions not asked, obfuscating, accusations or any easier direction.
Could this AGW Alarmist affliction be caused by elevated CO2 emissions?
Can we get them more oxygen then?
Roger Knights (20:09:55) :
“He won a Liberal leadership vote 42-41.”
Yipes! Talk about a close call. Just because the warmers are wrong doesn’t guarantee they’ll lose, with so many powerful interests on their side. That makes it all the more important to work all the harder to resist them, and their nefarious schemes.
(Still O/T) Craig, the G&T paper was published early this year. It created a little stir. I skimmed it. I’m not sure what to make of it. (I’m a skeptic by default.) I’m not sure why they couldn’t make their point in say 10 pages.
G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364
I think it’s time to push for an anti-trust investigation of AP.
I read Prof. Lindzen’s piece through a Wall Street Journal link from Planet Gore. Lindzen is a scientist’s scientist, a real scientist unlike some of the jokers I have been reading about in connection with “Climategate.” His article should be read by everyone.
Did editing leave something out or am I misunderstanding what the ‘paradox’ was (likely, of course)..
“For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.”
In order to explain why the earth was warm with less sun, wouldn’t CO2 have to be enhanced instead of diminished? I thought cirrus clouds were a positive, not a negative feedback? If so, then we’d need a different example?
Is there something missing somewhere?
RE: “globally averaged temperature anomaly”
How can a natural process be considered an anomaly?
Is there some fixed point in time when there was a normal average temperature for the planet?
If so, who got to pick the day?
Really, what is normal for temperature?
—
Today is such a nice day, not too hot not too cold. Hmmm… this is what everyday should be like.
Fahrenheit: June 5th, 1718
Craig Moore (19:48:07) :
Keith G (20:35:19) :
Ken (21:43:43) :
Trey (22:02:46) :
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-300667.html
Keith G (20:35:19) :
“Craig Moore: wrt http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf, I read an earlier draft of this paper about a year ago. Unfortunately, the author’s command of colloquial English is less than perfect and it is sometimes hard to follow his chain of logic…”
Perhaps it’s because translating from the original German leaves somewhat to be desired?
http://hallolinden-db.de/files/Klimawandel%20FolienAnhang%20Zur%20Physik%20und%20Mathematik%20globaler%20Klimamodelle.pdf
If I remember, Lief Svalgaard doesn’t like it, but I would have to have some analysis to be sold on that, after all the authors aren’t exactly lightweight contenders.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Gerhard+Gerlich%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ralf%20D.%20Tscheuschner&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws
I mean, it’s not like they are likely to get either the math or the physics wrong, after all.
The root of all evil…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
The BBC obviously knows more than Prof Lindzen about global warming.
Richard Black http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm is not questioning anything. He is quoting IPCC as under estimating the ‘true’ facts…..
Keith G (20:35:19) :
re: my yonason (22:27:10) :
NOTE – the English and German papers aren’t word for word identical, perhaps because formatting is different in the journals each was respectively published in? I don’t know, but much of the material is the same, and it may be that the German is clearer, if you can read it. I’m not fluent, so it would take me a while to get through it. Still, from what I’ve seen so far, it is the “same paper” conceptually, and materially, if not organizatinally.
Syl, I think he’s hypothesizing that there might be more thin cirrus clouds in the Tropics, Today.
If there were, and they were a “Negative” feedback, then that could explain why we’re not much hotter than before. (I think)
Andrew (22:15:43) :
RE: “globally averaged temperature anomaly”
How can a natural process be considered an anomaly?
Is there some fixed point in time when there was a normal average temperature for the planet?
If so, who got to pick the day?
Really, what is normal for temperature?
Yeah, and what is the Goldilocks CO2 level?
And what made it go up and down before us?
No guessing!
Re The G&P paper…I have also read it in great detail (took quite a long time)…..I liked it and could not understand why it did not rx more attention…there does seem to be a language problem though…and it does waffle on a bit…over at Climateaudit Steve did not want to talk about it…who knows why….need a good physicist to comment on it…but to find one without an agenda is a bit hard these days
Sorry meant the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper G&T not G&P
Jan – Hang in there! A couple of years ago I was deeply puzzled by Gore’s movie and all the passion and panic over climate. It didn’t make sense to me, so I started reading this site, along with CO2skeptics, CA, CO2science, the reference frame and many, many papers that were reference on those sites dealing with the complicated sciences which apply to our earth environment. It didn’t take long to learn about the main players, the depth and breadth of climate mysteries, and the nonsense going on. I can tell that you are thinking, questioning, and trying to find answers, and that is what everybody should do, in my opinion.
I am so grateful for the persistence of A. Watts, R. Lindzen, S. McIntyre, R. McKitrick and so many others, because the events of the last couple of weeks are showing that their efforts are paying off. I believe that the entities involved in the AGW movement have many different, and some similar, goals, and I also think that CO2/climate change are in fact the perfect “excuse” for a larger kabal of an elite group globally to consolidate power, wealth, and global control, and that it will be hard to stop them. We need to stay informed, inform others, and provide influence where we can locally and through our vote.
Aligner: Last time I looked at this paper, I skimmed it and did not form an opinion one way or the other as to its worthiness. Nothing for it, I suppose: I shall just have to read it more closely and make my own assessment.
Yonason: Thank you for your input. When I next look at the paper, I shall try harder in reading though the imperfections in the translation.
I’m a sceptic but i dont think Lindzen is a good name for us to mention as there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding some of the other things he has advocated.
snowmaneasy (23:15:05) :
I’m just trying to get through bits of it (them). The sections relative to “average global temperature” are in the German on pp31&32. In the English it’s much longer and detailed, and can be found in sections 3.7.3 to and incl., 3.7.5, where one reads: