This is a letter professor Richard Lindzen of MIT sent to the Boston Globe and was published today. It is well worth the read.
KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment. Vague terms such as “consistent with,’’ “probably,’’ and “potentially’’ hardly change this. Certainly climate change is real; it occurs all the time. To claim that the little we’ve seen is larger than any change we “have been able to discern’’ for a thousand years is disingenuous. Panels of the National Academy of Sciences and Congress have concluded that the methods used to claim this cannot be used for more than 400 years, if at all. Even the head of the deservedly maligned Climatic Research Unit acknowledges that the medieval period may well have been warmer than the present.
The claim that everything other than models represents “mere opinion and speculation’’ is also peculiar. Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor, and the physics of these processes can be observationally tested (the normal scientific approach); at this point, the models seem to be failing.
Finally, given a generation of environmental propaganda, a presidential science adviser (John Holdren) who has promoted alarm since the 1970s, and a government that proposes funding levels for climate research about 20 times the levels in 1991, courage seems hardly the appropriate description – at least for scientists supporting such alarm.
Richard S. Lindzen
Cambridge
The writer is Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Theo Goodwin (12:14:18) :
This one? http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
The most famous global warming prediction based on modeling was Hansen’s, in 1989. It’s been twenty years, a reasonable period of time to compare his modeling to reality.
His projections hold up spectacularly well: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg. He’s within a tenth of a degree C for 2009, having very slightly over-estimated the radiative forcing of the GHGs in the atmosphere (http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg) would be TWENTY YEARS LATER.
The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.
I read the comment threads on both the Emanuel and Lindzen pieces.
[If I’m not reviewing it with biased eyes,] I see more support and praise for Lindzen, and more critical comments to Emanuel. Not what I would’ve expected to see a year or even six months ago.
given the failure of the MSM to warn of bubbles BEFORE they are manufactured, it is a little heartening to see the following:
19 Feb: UK Telegraph: Here comes the next bubble – carbon trading
I’ve long had my suspicions about the great carbon trading bubble, and I’ve
had them pretty much confirmed by a brilliant article which has been drawn
to my attention by one Mark Schapiro in Harper’s magazine…
Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve
delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of
delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves
around creating carbon credits, or finding carbon reduction projects whose
benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is
entirely intangible..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/
Harpers (scroll down) CONNING THE CLIMATE
Inside the Carbon-Trading Shell Game
By Mark Schapiro
Indeed, carbon exists as a commodity only
through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats,
who determine both the demand, by
setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing
criteria for offsets. It was the United
States that sculpted the cap-and-trade system
during the Kyoto negotiations, before pulling
out of the accord and leaving the rest of the
world to implement the scheme. Since then,
most of the world’s major political, fi nancial,
and environmental interests have aligned
themselves with the idea, because of its potential
to generate profi ts out of adversity and to
avoid the diffi cult economic decisions posed
by climate change. Now the Obama Administration
and the Democratic Congress-along
with most American companies, which see
cap-and-trade as the friendliest regulation
they could hope for-want to rejoin the world
and multiply the market. That market is, in
essence, an elaborate shell game, a disappearing
act that nicely serves the immediate interests
of the world’s governments but fails to
meet the challenges of our looming environmental
crisis.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
anthony and co – those of us without scientific understanding are forever grateful to you – keep up the good work and help save us from the “bubble of all bubbles”.
Makes me literally LOL to think how intolerable Dr. Lindzen’s existence must be to the inner core of the AGW alarmist camp.
Even a neural networks computer climate model can be expected to be right at least half the time. Eventually, they will make a “correct” prediction by chance, and then we will be screwed.
Isn’t this how people write news letter predicting the stock market?
Make one predicion, send it out to 100 people. Make the opposite prediction, send it out to 100 people. You will have made the right prediction to at least 100 people.
Next, send out another letter to the 100 people who got the “correct” letter. Send one prediction to 50 of those people. Send the opposite predicion to the other 50. At least 50 people will be amazed by your ability to pick stocks.
Repeat this one more time. 25 people will think you are a genius because you picked the right stock three times in a row and they will sign up for your $250 news letter.
The problem is that most people cannot remember what the weather was yesterday. One accedental correct prediction will convince the masses.
I agree with the admiring comments made by other readers.
Dr. Lindzen, you do indeed exude a quiet authority, the sort that comes with total honesty. When you live your life free of agenda, when you have nothing to hide, when you seek the truth of the matter, you can present yourself with confidence. You don’t need to shout, because what you say is valuable enough that others will listen, even though you speak in moderate tones.
I am just humbled at your wonderful mind, and your willingness to stand up for humanity, and your courage to tell the unvarnished truth. You’re so right — How can a climate alarmist claim courage in speaking out, when our government is totally in the tank for alarmism. John Holdren is a scoundrel whose views are frightening.
Thank you for giving of yourself. We are lucky, indeed, that you have done so.
RockyRoad (12:32:08) : “(Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)”
I don’t know about you, but I have to share mine with a cat, which already takes me down to 150K tons.
OMG, it’s worse than I thought!
Robert (13:22:28) :
That subject has been covered in detail on this site and others. Hansen’s predictions are not good — he gave outputs for 3 scenarios. The people you are quoting are spinning again with a sleight-of-hand where the input of one scenario is matched the output of a completely different scenario.
Check it out for yourself.
Of course that’s actually 100K tons…brain shutting down…symptoms of anoxia increasing…can’t breathe…
NickB,
This one? http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
Yes, that one.
RockyRoad> (Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)
Hmmm, put like that it seems like you should be taxed on it!
🙂
Robert (13:22:28),
As usual, Robert is flat wrong. Getting false information from the realclimate echo chamber will do that. RC takes Hansen’s “adjusted” temperatures which – surprise! – show that he was accurate. But looking at the raw data, we see how much Hansen was off: click
In this blink gif [takes a couple of seconds to load], we see how GISS meddles with the temperature record to pretend Hansen [who runs GISS] was right: click
And GISS shows warming, while the [much more accurate] sattelite records show cooling: click
James Hansen’s predictions vs reality: click1, click2
Ever notice how the alarmist believers always talk about Hansen’s scenario C? That’s because C was the least wrong. From Lucia’s site: click.
That’s called the “Texas Sharpshooter fallacy”: Shoot 3 holes in a barn door, then draw a circle around one hole, and claim that was your target. Hansen’s 3 predictions cover such a wide temperature range, it’s really surprising that he didn’t get at least one of them right. But every single one of them was wrong.
Finally, a WUWT article: Hansen’s models are “Useless”: click
Robert (13:22:28)
Doesn’t look so good now, especially given the divergence between the sat and land records:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Funny how Hansen’s temperature record matches his predictions better than the sat records, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence
Dr. Lindzen once again shows that he is a true scientist and gentleman.
He graciously explains that the models are failing.
Dr. Lindzen does not go on to state the obvious that the greedy “TEAM” of ‘science’ fraudsters realized this and also chose to grossly manipulate the data in an attempt to fix the output.
What greed will do to men.
(yes, I know about Mann’s hockey stick generator program – I am sure some of the models behave in a like manner)
We have RICO in the US – where is the attorney who really wants to make a name for him/herself?
Robert writes:
“The close match between GHG concentrations and temperature increases, predicted 20 years ago and now an observed fact, is strong empirical evidence of global warming theory.”
Actually, it is evidence that temperature is rising. To take the additional step and say the rise is caused by GHG, you have to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. Otherwise, the rise in temperature could just as well be caused by the same natural factors that caused the MWP. Eliminating the MWP is what got Mann into such a mess. At best, you can say that the prediction from the model is pefectly consistent with GHG as a cause.
How is Hansen’s work on clouds? As Lindzen points out in his remarkably brief statement, the models depend on assumptions about the role of clouds in creating so called “forcings.” So, if you want to say that Hansen’s prediction is right on the money, you will have to include the prediction about the clouds too.
“NickB. (12:16:04) :
Matthew (11:52:13) :
I love you Richard. Oh maybe love is too strong a term. No, actually I think I was right the first time, for your quiet determination a statue should be built in your honour.
I think I’m somewhat bromantically inclined toward him too :Pd
How he manages to keep his cool amidst the crap-storm the believer community has hurled his way, I’ll never understand”
Dr Lindzen is German. He takes names and makes lists. Don’t worry, his day will come and his revenge will be sweet.
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology critiqued an article by Kerry Emanuel, director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
I guess Dr. Lindzen is confident that his tenure will keep him from being fired, even if he causes MIT to lose a few million dollars of government-funded research. Political Correctness usually wins in the short term, but I think the time has finally come for some Scientific Correctness to assert itself. It is instructive to read both short articles.
Robert (13:22:28)
Nice try…. Keep in mind that “Scenario C” was based on the assumption of no increased CO2 emissions post Year 2000. Which of course did not happen. What actually happened with CO2 emissions was somewhere between Scenario A and B.
Just keep spreading disinformation… Someone will believe you eventually!
D Caldwell (13:40:43) :
“Makes me literally LOL to think how intolerable Dr. Lindzen’s existence must be to the inner core of the AGW alarmist camp.”
Yes, can you imagine Pachauri reading that!
A quiet message to the Love Guru of the Carbon Cult.
Emanuel states “We have never before dealt with a problem that threatens not us, but our distant descendants.”
Well, errr, uhh….how about high-level nuclear waste? We sure need to correct that situation ASAP!
Robert (13:22:28)
Also see Pielke Jr.’s analysis: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000838scenarios_scenarios.html
Any conclusion that Hansen’s 1988 prediction got things right, necessarily must conclude that it got things right for the wrong reasons.
Re: Robert (Feb 19 13:22), Robert
Your statement is quite simply untrue. I have taken the trouble to read Hansen’s paper, and you can too:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha02700w
His preferred scenario, scenario B, expects an anomaly of 1.1% for 2010. Annual anomaly in 2009 per GISS is precisely half that, even after all the shenanigans described in the surfacestations project. How can you call this accurate? He did revise it, a couple of times, to fit it better to the outcomes, but that is just like the Stoat erasing the MWP from wikipedia.
RockyRoad (12:32:08) :
(Now what on earth am I going to do with 203 thousand tons of oxygen?)
When you have as much money to burn as these climate ‘scientists’ have, then 203 thousand tons of oxygen does not seem like all that much, does it?
Sorry degree, not percent. Can’t find degrees C on my keyboard