I had dinner with Richard Lindzen (along with Lucia, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id, and others) last night after a hectic day of airline roulette. He’s easy to talk to and easy to like, so it is no surprise to me that he and Kerry Emanuel could have been friends as discussed in this Boston Globe article.
It is no surprise they grew to be friends.
Richard Lindzen and Kerry Emanuel are both brilliant and convivial. Both study the atmosphere and climate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where their offices overlooking the Charles River are one floor apart. In an academic world often dominated by liberals, both have strong conservative streaks and once agreed that the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming just wasn’t there.
But then the climate changed between them. Friends became intellectual foes, dueling icons in one of the world’s most acrimonious political debates.
Friends had a hard time staying friends.
Lindzen, a leading specialist on atmospheric physics, has emerged as one of the most prominent climate change skeptics in the world. At age 70, he speaks at home and overseas, arguing that there is little to worry about from emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, factories, and cars. We should “go back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water,’’ he wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Earth Day.
Emanuel, an equally respected researcher, emerged as a preeminent voice on climate change’s potential dangers after he published a paper three weeks before Katrina that suggested global warming might be making hurricanes more powerful. Named one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine, Emanuel, 55, says he has been persuaded by the evolving science that man-made climate change is a real threat.
“I don’t see how a climate scientist can look at the evidence and not see risk,’’ he said recently.
Emanuel thinks Lindzen’s key theories don’t hold up, and just two weeks ago went public with his criticism, penning a tart letter to the editor rebutting Lindzen’s Journal piece — “irresponsible and misleading,’’ he called it, “advancing spurious hypotheses.’’
Lindzen has implied that Emanuel is hyping the evidence and making a play for fame and funding in the age of Obama and Gore. In a letter savaging an opinion piece by Emanuel in the Globe, he branded the reasoning “more advocacy than assessment.’’
In the Ivory Tower, these are fighting words.
The story of the scientists’ relationship is much more than a curiosity. The fact that these serious-minded colleagues and longtime friends disagree so vehemently highlights the immense difficulty of finding common ground on human-caused global warming. That’s because their disagreements are not just about interpretations of scientific data, but about how they assess the risks, amid the uncertainty over global warming’s future impact.
Their divide mirrors a much larger political split, as the US Senate begins to debate a climate bill written in large part by Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry. All parties to the debate have the same evidence to draw on; their conclusions are another matter. Lindzen and Emanuel’s collision spotlights the ultimate sticking point: What steps should we take, and at what cost? That is: How much insurance against the possibility of catastrophe should a prudent planet buy?
“If these two guys can’t agree on the basic conclusions of the social significance of [climate change science], how can we expect 6.5 billion people to?’’ said Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado at Boulder professor who writes a climate blog.
read the rest of the story here at the Boston Globe
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To understand climate we must understand economics first:
Capitalism, along with climate science, is divided in two kinds:
1.Capitalism: Men who work and produce real “goods”(notice that “goods” are essentially good), helped by other working men.
2.Pseudo capitalism: Men who DO NOT work and have never worked, they are dedicated to counterfeiting money (plastic , credits ,etc.) and make a living from other peoples´effort, and these are usually helped by politicians.
Pseudo capitalists promote global warming, climate change,etc. with the purpose of scaring people (or buying people, if not scared and buyable) and achieving global government and absolute dependance from them.
Capitalist, working people, used to having “common sense”, are by nature, global warming/climate change skeptics.
Dan [11:07 am] writes, “… he [Lindzen] has not found much evidence to support this claim either in theory or models.”
Neither theory nor models provide any evidence whatever; models are simply expressions of a theory. Only observation and measurement provide actual evidence, and I note that there is still no evidence whatsoever for the CO2-driven AGW theory, only speculations based on the lab behavior of CO2 when irradiated — which is of questionable relevance when it amounts to a tiny trace gas in a chaotic system the whole effect of which is to move enormous quantities of heat and moisture from point A to point B.
Both Lindzen and Spencer have studied actual measurements and found that the evidence strongly favors a very large degree of overall negative feedback. And considering that the entire climate system has been remarkably stable over the last billion or so years, and that large positive feedbacks necessarily produce unstable systems, why do you believe that their conclusion is in error?
Here’s Lindzen’s colloquium presentation to Fermilab earlier this year, “The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming.” The link is to the Fermilab archive server, since I don’t always trust the postings to YouTube.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/index.htm
Abstract:
“I will briefly discuss why this is a peculiar issue, and illustrate this with various examples of how the issue is being exploited and portrayed. In particular, I will show how much of the science and phenomenology being presented is contradicted by both logic and data.
Although there is a profound disconnect between the commonly cited IPCC conclusion and the various projections of catastrophe, it is nonetheless worthwhile to examine the basis for the IPCC attribution of recent warming to man because the arguments are profoundly at odds with normative scientific logic. Even so, the claimed result, itself, is consistent with low, and hence unworrisome, climate sensitivity.
This talk will discuss how one can ascertain the sensitivity. Most approaches are faulty in that they use observed temperature behavior and assume its cause. We show how this trap can be avoided. There are several approaches, and they each lead to the conclusion that current models are substantially exaggerating sensitivity. However, because of the peculiar nature of this issue, it seems unlikely that either this or the evidence of data mishandling will serve to diminish the commitment of many individuals to the seriousness of the alleged problem.”
Dan says, “that was not a coherent scientific statement. but you’ve apparently already closed the case, so there’s no need for discussion.”
You have my sympathies for not being able to understand a simple, grammatical English sentence. Which part confuses you? By the way, isn’t one obliged to capitalize the first word of a new sentence?
Joel Shore, May 16, 2010 at 1:57 pm said:
“You haven’t provided us with a quote from Emanuel.”
OK, here’s Emanuel’s quote: [“…crickets…“]
See? Silence is concurrence. if someone pointed at me and said, “Smokey is a thief!”, and I didn’t promptly dispute it, I would look mighty guilty, no? It’s human nature to correct the record when someone makes up something about you [and Lindzen isn’t the type to fabricate a quote].
Emanuel certainly knows what Lindzen said about him; they work in the same building. But he didn’t dispute it.
Now, about your multiple posts here trying to set everyone straight, as usual. You make it look like you enjoy enlarging your circle of opponents. But you never convert anyone to CAGW, far as I can see. I suppose you could be right, and everyone else is wrong. But what are the odds? You know, it’s actually possible that you are arguing for a failed hypothesis.
An image of Joel the Black Knight comes to mind: “‘Tis but a flesh wound!”
I just had the opportunity to view the Kerry Emmanuel video interview with the Boston Globe linked in this post. I am struggling for a proper adjective to describe my reaction to it. Amazing? Jaw dropping? Dumbfounding? I can’t decide. His exposition on the dangers of sea level rise from AGW would be mildly embarrassing if it came from one of the slow kids at a middle school which had just been forced to endure a week’s worth of daily viewings of “An Inconvenient Truth”, that it came from the mouth of a guy who has held and apparently still holds a major faculty position in climate science at one of the premier scientific universities in the world is just…just…mindblowing! Warming at the high end of IPCC projections might lead to the melting of the Greenland icecap and 22 ft. of sea level rise? Yes Kerry it might, if you extend that trend line out for about a millenium or maybe two. If you instantaneously double the already dubious present rate of observed rise in MSL and straight line it to the end of this century you end up with about 22 INCHES of rise, less than a tenth of your 22 FEET.
If this mook is at all representative of the level of intellectual acumen present in the “consensus” science community, I’m feeling much better about my own inclination not to join that consensus, but I’m feeling much worse about the future of the planet which will be left to their tender mercies.
“If these two guys can’t agree on the basic conclusions of the social significance of [climate change science], how can we expect 6.5 billion people to?’’
If we accept that both Emmanuel and Lindzen are honest, well informed, competent scientists, experts in their field, this tells me that: despite at least 30 years intensive research, by thousands of scientists around the world, the fingerprints of AGW (if it is happening) are too faint to be discerned against the natural background; there is thus no clear evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is leading to any kind of climate catastrophe; and thus nor is there any evidence that if we are facing a climate catastrophe due to global warming reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions will avert or mitigate it.
MIT has sold its reputation long ago. Susan Hockfeld is an alarmist. She is part of the GE Obama Chicago clique. It is all about money and hype. It is easy to verify – simply pick up a copy of the MIT Technology Review – it is a bunch of hype and mostly advocacy garbage purporting to be “science”. Very embarrassing for what was once a high quality college.
Lindzen looks worn down, Emmanuel looks like he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying.
Dan says:
May 16, 2010 at 11:07 am
2) Given that our current path of emissions will likely take us to at least 5xCO2-equivalent…… the resulting warming of 4-5
Please tell me where the equivalant of 1300 ppm CO2 is coming from by 2100. Which, by the way is barely over two doublings, or 2 to 2.5 c depending on whos firgure you take for 2x CO2.
Also tell me how much more food the world could produce in such a senario?
It’s a fallacy that these men need to find common ground. But MSM writers frame it this way so as to give the alarmists a fighting chance with a country that mostly disagrees with their hysteria.
convivial??????
Really?
That’s where I stoped reading!!
” “If these two guys can’t agree on the basic conclusions of the social significance of [climate change science], how can we expect 6.5 billion people to?’’ said Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado at Boulder professor who writes a climate blog. ”
Because we don’t look to 6.5 billion people to come to that decision. We leave it to the majority of scientists and politicians. The people are only guided by media and whatever they are convinced will be in their own best interest, they don’t care about the details. Anyway, this is crazy it’s not a 50/50 split between climatologists on AGW. The only details to be worked out really are the consequences given we know it is a very high probability (90%) that CO2 is causing more or less what the IPCC claims in terms of an overall increasing of temperature.
These arguments don’t even make sense anymore, I’m moving towards Kerry Emanuel in a big way because the amount of evidence and the explanations from ‘warmists’ has become far more convincing over my years of research.
And he’s right about Richard Lindzen, he is completely deluded, his iris effect is wrong and some of his papers are written as if he wants to achieve a desired statistical result. Which is astonishing because I’ve never seen any of the statisticians here go through his stuff with a fine tooth comb. I only agree that intrinsic variability is possible, but it is not at all nearly as well established as CO2 forcings. Some of his statements blatantly misunderstand things which are obvious, such as his definition of greenhouse effect. According to him, doubling CO2 leads to 4W/m^2 in the tropopause where LW radiation is 240W/m^2 thereby deriving 2% being the ‘greenhouse effect’. This is not even close to being true.
Personally, after many years of skepticism I’ve finally found myself feeling rather stupid to have tried to make so complicated something that is really rather simple to comprehend. The only thing to know is the effects, will plant matter grow better? It looks like yes, under doubling of CO2 and temperature increases its quite good for food productivity.. I’m not an alarmist yet haha.
I hear there is a new chair being offered at the Nostradamus Institute of Mythology in Asgard near Norway, perhaps Emmanuel should apply, he should not be at MIT.
Marvin,
Can you please show how Lindzen’s iris effect is wrong? Are you discounting the effects of clouds? Just wondering. Labeling the internationally esteemed head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department as “deluded” seems a bit harsh.
Fred Hoyle summed it neatly last century – when scientists like the two reported here disagree, then clearly both are thinking with the wrong ideas – and that the solution to the problem lies in another approach.
I would suggest that the theory of the plasma universe etc would be a better approach.
Smokey says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:28 am
Lindsen requires us to believe that in a warming system, there is a negative feedback where less water vapor is created in an increasing heat system due to areas of subsidence (increased drying because of convection). Bizzarre much? That’s a lot more difficult to believe considering there’s absolutely no evidence other than statistics which to my mind look designed. And as for calling him out and saying he is deluded, well I believe he is, as does his old friend Kerry Emanuel.
Max Hugoson said: (May 16, 2010 at 9:01 am) : “So I give you a new gospel. How about turning the Gorebull warming “debate” over to ENGINEERS? The problem is, then it would no longer be a debate, but it would lead towards a SOLUTION. “
Respectfully Max, no, the problem is there is no problem, so we need no solution. The masses are gradually waking up to this, and with every awakening the elites know they must up the ante. And so we see ever more hysterical claims of skies falling due to warming and CO2 “pollution.”
They’d have us believe Polar bears are dying out, that hurricanes are on the increase, that sea levels are rising faster than ever, that there was no MWP, that plants will soon grow too fast to maintain nutritional value, that suicidal birds are flying into cliff faces, that human anger is more prevalent, that volcanic eruptions are set to increase due to decreasing ice weight, that malaria is on the increase, that coral is being killed by acidic seas… these are just a small number of baseless alarmist claims that I can pull off the top of my head right now.
The ray of sunshine is, that with every up-of-the-ante from the alarmists, more people are getting wise to their game.
Marvin says:
May 17, 2010 at 12:29 am
The only details to be worked out really are the consequences given we know it is a very high probability (90%) that CO2 is causing more or less what the IPCC claims in terms of an overall increasing of temperature.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
No Marvin, we don’t know this.
Athelstan says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:04 am
I hear there is a new chair being offered at the Nostradamus Institute of Mythology in Asgard near Norway, perhaps Emmanuel should apply, he should not be at MIT.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
He could try his hand at selling used cars.
Marvin says:
May 17, 2010 at 12:29 am
Because we don’t look to 6.5 billion people to come to that decision. We leave it to the majority of scientists and politicians.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Ya, there you go Marvin. We have to just fall into line, hey babe?
Weather is like a beach, always changing, never the same.
Climate is like a beach, never changing, never the same.
___________
Humans are like lemmings, always changing, always the same.
Marvin said: “These arguments don’t even make sense anymore, I’m moving towards Kerry Emanuel in a big way because the amount of evidence and the explanations from ‘warmists’ has become far more convincing over my years of research.”
OK, I’m all ears (or eyes). Share this “evidence” of CAGW with us. And try to do better than Emanuel in explaining it. And that means taking these hints: Models are not evidence. Hypotheses are not evidence. Proxies which diverge from observed measurements in unpredictable and non-linear ways are not evidence. Climate change (which has always happened) is, in itself, not evidence. Temperature sensor station readings are great evidence that buildings and airports are warmer than open countryside.
So what is this “amount of evidence” and “the explanations” that have “become far more convincing” to you?
Tony says:
May 16, 2010 at 6:20 am
The point is, that science is NOT about risk!
You’ve never read about Schrodinger’s cat?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Ya, there you go Marvin. We have to just fall into line, hey babe?
It’s not about falling into line. We live in a democracy and we have our choice of how we want to live. Far more so than any other society I can name. After years of listening and reading and taking interest I have come to the point where skepticism of lots of the concepts is not overriding the good science of the climatologist scientists of the IPCC. I’ve read from other sources trying to balance the answers and find out the ‘objective truth’ and the responses to the skeptical arguments are more compelling; but that is not to say we have no reason to be dutiful to our betters. I still believe the ‘catastrophic’ is not all it seems and there’s room for much better work on consequences. If the ice continues to decrease and keeps an upward trend, we really are kidding ourselves because ‘instrinsic variation’ should not be so in sync with CO2 forcing and for us skeptics to have no alternate hypotheses. We should be able to have at least one alternate hypotheses which stands has evidence which coincides with the mounds of literature available. Otherwise it does fall into what I categorise as denialism.
David, UK says:
OK, I’m all ears (or eyes).
Sorry, it took me a very long time to come to my discovery and I spent ridiculous amounts of times reading over the years. If you’re anything like me, it’s very hard to not be super critical of every aspect you don’t understand yet. So you just have to keep reading, but not just wattsupwiththat. It’s great here, because it provides some aspects I haven’t read elsewhere. But it’s a counterweight to some great information from other souces such as realclimate (yes I know just ignore this if you want to be angry about me saying they’re good). I’m not trying to start a flamewar. I will grant you this, calling Lindzen deluded was wrong, because I normally reserve that for religious people heh :).