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.
harvey (19:52:04) :
“Somehow I see too many parallels between what is happening right now with AGW and the good ol’ ozone hole
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
methinks you really don’t want to get at the truth, just demolish the lives and careers of the scientists you disagree with.”
Interesting point Harvey. However, the hypothesis of man-made CFC’s being the main cause has many holes in it. The variation of the sun’s UV output seems to modulate ozone production, and cosmic rays also are implicated in ozone change. Despite the Montreal Protocol, the scientific debate is far from over.
Even NASA, one of the bastions of government funded science thinks the same thing could have been the cause of the Maunder Minimum cold period, which happened hundreds of years before CFC’s were even invented.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122
Robert, remember to work with only the actual % of CO2 that forms the human CO2 emissions, not the overall CO2 % in the atmosphere. Naturally occurring CO2 cannot be considered in your explanation.
“Smokey (04:57:22) :
[…]
Harvey, I wonder about your self labeling as a skeptic. Maybe, maybe not. But that polemic you posted was nothing but greenie propaganda. From their conclusion:
[…]
Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, […]”
Ooh. Evil skeptics. Publishing things without peer review. Like… hmmm…. Climbers magazines? ROTFL!
Smokey (19:13:03) : c james (19:02:19),
All I was trying to do with that graph was subtract out this:
http://i42.tinypic.com/2luqma8.jpg
Since we know the readings are affected by UHI, these adjustments should have the inverse sign as a more realistic approach to reality, so I only took about half of this obvious bias off the temperature.
“Mark (02:38:51) :
By the way, note he says “at the moment”. The models may get it right at some point. This whole thing may be a time of development for them. We should not abandon the attempt to model. We might get it right. But even if we get it wrong we may learn much in the process.”
If the modelers pay for the supercomputer time out of their own pocket, why not. If they want me to pay for that, i may just ask what it’s good for. I’ll happily fund useful research through my taxes. I’m not so happy having to fund politicized pseudoscience that is used to justify tax hikes. That’s something that you can fund if you want to. The argument that we should any ole crap because we might learn something in the process sounds pretty weak to me. Well in fact it sounds outright malevolent.
“charles the moderator (04:01:38) :
Alexej Buergin.
Just copy this one €”
I know how to insert any sign aviable among the fonts. My point is: The standard US-keyboard is very simple, and it is irritating that ° is missing (is used in music, too, for the dim-chord: C° = Cdim).
There should be an improved US-keyboard for scientists, with °, SQR, ^2 etc. One can easily have 5 different symbols per key. But maybe it already exists?
Actually, I kinda like Hansen’s Scenario C. Assume you had written the software with the assumption that CO2 would impact the temps. You run a few models, then as an afterthought wonder what the results would be if CO2 had NO effect on T. How could you run the software unmodified to see what would happen if there were no CO2/T relationship?
Easy. Just show no increase in CO2 for the duration of the run. Now the results will only reflect the impact of whatever other variable were included. Which is what Scenario 3 did. Which came out closest to reality. So Scenario 3, the actual temps, and rising CO2 levels is consistent with CO2 having little or no effects on temperature.
Breaking News on Climate Data – SPN Headlines exclusive:
http://stupidassnews.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/climate-change-scientist-i-used-a-ouija-board/
Have a great day! 🙂
harrywr2 @ur momisugly 6:42:50 My slogan for the alarmists for years has been: ‘Don’t sacrifice my virgins for your superstitions.
==============================
Harvey,
A short and to the point refutation of anthropogenic ozone depletion:
Anatarctic ozone was measured for the first time in the 1950s at about 110 DU. This value is much lower than the early satellite data and similar to values measured in the recent minimums.
Ozone has been measured at Mauna Loa since the 1960s with no discernible trend whatsoever, only seasonal variation. Exactly what logic allowed scientists to suggest that reduced ozone in Antarctica is caused by CFC emissions in the NH with no reduction in ozone in the areas between there and here? Ozone concentration is primarily dependent on temperature and incident radiation.
This is interesting. Caution my explanation is unsophisticated at best, but I will try…… Essentially, the data in three peer reviewed studies indicates some evidence that outgoing long-wave IR radiation at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs (and ultimately re-emits as energy/heat) are stable or increasing over time.
Theory says that outbound radiation at this wavelength should decrease as CO2 absorbs it. So observations diverge from theory. Looks like the data is limited in geographic and temporal coverage, so that would be a big qualifier too….. anyway read it for yourself. I would be interested to hear more qualified voices validate if there is anything here.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
Smokey (04:57:22) : in response to harvey @ur momisugly 20:41:30
Smokey, your link to the Ozone hole goes to the main page – the direct link to 2006 is here:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/daily.php?date=2006-09-24
And a brief summary of the story you explain is here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/13749/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
My belief regarding the Ozone hole is that it is a normal atmospheric process with sufficient naturally occurring halogens that the industrially produced CFCs were/are not significant. There have been a couple of WUWT posts incorporating such issues.
Reading in this week’s New Scientist Magazine I came across an interesting statement which may explain why AGW advocacy is still very strong, even with all the recent evidence clearly pointing towards the sceptics’ viewpoint. In an Opinion article by Professor of Law Eric E Johnson of North Dakota, discussing possible court arguments in a trial against CERN, he states the following:
‘Social scientists have identified a number of phenomena that can skew attempts to reach objective assessments of risk. For instance, cognitive dissonance describes the tendency of people to seek information that is consistent with their beliefs and to avoid information that is inconsistent. “Groupthink” describes a process by which intelligent individuals, working in a group, can reach a worry-free outlook that is not justified by the facts. And the phenomenon of confirmation bias – the tendency to filter information so as to confirm working hypotheses – was cited by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board as one explanation for why space shuttle programme managers ignored sure signs for trouble’
What a perfect explanation for the collusion and cover up by the scientific community who are all suffering from cognitive dissonance, groupthink and confirmation bias.
It’s ironic to find this statement in New Scientist which is a poster child for the AGW crowd and also implicated as a source for Pachauri’s biggest MSM publicised mistake over Glaciergate. It would seem they can recognise the possibility in others but aren’t so hot when it comes to introspection.
@ur momisugly dkkraft (09:11:57) :
Here comes comments Rajendra Pachauri: “Voodoo Science”
Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. -Mark Twain
dkkraft
I’ve seen that article before recently but I don’t think it is as conclusive as it sounds. The measuring instruments were not the same, adjustments for surface temperature seem to have been based on instrument data which has been shown to be…problematic…. and choosing cloudless days… define cloud?
I suspect the correlation will turn out to be accurate, but I don’t expect the regimental charge of the AGW crowd will falter and the soldiers flee because of this.
So no mention that his last study was critically flawed and thoroughly debunked? (follow the links in the article for more reputable dismissals from journals)
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-reviews-lindzen-and-choi/
Naturally his response was essentially “But no one ever critically assesses pro climate change studies” which roughly means “Don’t pick on me”.
Given that he’s a lecturer with MiT I can’t understand how exactly the skeptics can claim to being undermined or stone walled. I’d argue lecturing in one of America’s most prestigious faculties shows he is taken seriously.
Doug Badgero (08:54:48) :
Harvey,
A short and to the point refutation of anthropogenic ozone depletion:
Anatarctic ozone was measured for the first time in the 1950s at about 110 DU. This value is much lower than the early satellite data and similar to values measured in the recent minimums.
Ozone has been measured at Mauna Loa since the 1960s with no discernible trend whatsoever, only seasonal variation. Exactly what logic allowed scientists to suggest that reduced ozone in Antarctica is caused by CFC emissions in the NH with no reduction in ozone in the areas between there and here? Ozone concentration is primarily dependent on temperature and incident radiation.
My reply;
If you open a Handbook of Physics, and thumb back to the pages listing magnetic reluctance / conductance of elements and compounds…
You will find the magnetic reluctance of O2 compared to O3 is about three orders of magnitude lower for Ozone, so in the presence of UV and other magnetic fields O2 converts to O3 by the normal conservation of energy mechanism employed a lot by nature.
The normal Ozone when released from the magnetic fields influence just breaks down to O2 again. I would suggest that it is the shape of the Earth’s magnetic fields in Southern winter that creates, and maintains the hole in the pattern, of the Ozone that follows the shape of the magnetic gradient, along the edge of the hole, low field strength inside higher outside.
Should be easy to test and put your mind to ease with out changing the production of anything.
Sierra Sam: exactly. No causation at all.
What Hansen (and by extension, Robert) must do first is explain the warming from 1910 to 1940, which was at least as great as that from 1975 to 2000, yet had low CO2 concentrations. Also, the cause of the Medieval Warming, and the Roman Warming. Then, they must rule out that warming mechanism (whatever they conclude it was, and that alone will be interesting), as a cause of the 1975 to 2000 warming.
Their explanations must be consistent with the known laws of physics, which includes fundamentals of process control — and what they have thus far advanced are not consistent.
We are still waiting.
davidmhoffer (11:01:09) :
Thanks for responding re: the American Thinker article. Yes, I thought the data might be a bit thin to support the sensational headline for sure. What was interesting was that in the peer reviewed articles, this very data was being used to confirm the validity of the climate models.
[post an excerpt and a link, not 1000 words copied from elsewhere. ~ ctm]
“…Despite their faults, models show that projections of significant warming depend critically on clouds and water vapor…” ~ Richard Lindzen
Of course Dr. Lindzen’s colleague, Kerry Emanuel knows that fact quite well, and so stated it in a paper he wrote for the January/February 2007 issue of Boston Review
Excerpts:
“..There are by now a few dozen such models in the world, but they are not entirely independent of one another, often sharing common pieces of computer code and common ancestors.
Although the equations representing the physical and chemical processes in the climate system are well known, they cannot be solved exactly.
It is computationally impossible to keep track of every molecule of air and ocean, and to make the task viable, the two fluids must be divided up into manageable chunks. The smaller and more numerous these chunks, the more accurate the result, but with today’s computers the smallest we can make these chunks in the atmosphere is around 100 miles in the horizontal and a few hundred yards in the vertical, and a bit smaller in the ocean.
The problem here is that many important processes are much smaller than these scales.
For example, cumulus clouds in the atmosphere are critical for transferring heat and water upward and downward, but they are typically only a few miles across and so cannot be simulated by the climate models. …
“..The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship.” ” Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank. ” – Kerry Emanuel, MIT colleague of Richard S. Lindzed http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200708/0391.html
Michael Ozanne 03:55:58
OT Unusual surname. Would you be related to the one time headmaster of a prep school in Wiltshire?
I just looked at the Boston Globe’s site. They charge a fee to see?read entire articles/letters, by the way. They do, however, give you a free peek, probably so you don’t accidentally buy the wrong article. I was able to “free peek” at both the original op-ed and the letter in response. I was able to read enough to verify there is no question these are the correct pieces. However, the Globe lists the letter’s author as Tim McIntyre. ?????????????????
ron pittenger (14:38:18) wrote: [quote] “I just looked at the Boston Globe’s site. They charge a fee to see?read entire articles/letters, by the way. They do, however, give you a free peek, probably so you don’t accidentally buy the wrong article. I was able to “free peek” at both the original op-ed and the letter in response. I was able to read enough to verify there is no question these are the correct pieces. However, the Globe lists the letter’s author as Tim McIntyre. ?????????????????” [end quote]
I saved a complete copy of what he wrote for the Boston Review in my archives (for future reference). If you, or anyone else wants a copy, give me an email address and I’ll send it to you.