The House Testimony on global warming yesterday had a number of excellent presentations, and you can watch the entire video here.
I’ve have professor Richard Lindzen’s presentation saved here in PDF form, and some key excerpts below. Part of his presentation looks like WUWT Sea Ice news. It is well worth the read.
Excerpts:
The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak –and commonly acknowledged as such.
…
Given that this has become a quasi-religious issue, it is hard to tell. However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation. In point of fact, there has been progress along these lines and none of it demonstrates a prominent role for CO2. It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations (as was thought to be the case before global warming mania); tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2(a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks.
…
We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative. Similar results are being obtained by Roy Spencer.
This is not simply a technical matter. Without positive feedbacks, doubling CO2only produces 1C warming. Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts.
This becomes clearer when we relate feedbacks to climate sensitivity (ie the warming associated with a doubling of CO2).
…
Discussion of other progress in science can also be discussed if there is any interest. Our recent work on the early faint sun may prove particularly important. 2.5 billion years ago, when the sun was 20% less bright (compared to the 2% change in the radiative budget associated with doubling CO2), evidence suggests that the oceans were unfrozen and the temperature was not very different from today’s. No greenhouse gas solution has worked, but a negative cloud feedback does.
You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.
Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.
===============================================
Entire presentation is available here: Lindzen_Testimony_11-17-2010 (PDF 1.4 MB)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There speaks a real scientist, not some bogus charlatan as we see in the climategate emails.
about time I hope al gore reads this and every body that believes in global warming but i think thay will not take any notice, thay have there heads in the sand
An order of magnitude better than Judith’s. Judith always starts from the premise that CO² produces significant global warming and works forward from that and while I praise her ‘adapt and enjoy’ attitude her testimony was full of socio-jargon designed to baffle the more intellectually challenged members of congress.
Dr L is clear, concise, precise and provably correct. However, the make up of the witness list implies an attempt to bias the issue toward the alarmlists. I don’t hold out much hope of any Damascas moments among your congressmen/women.
This is not the moment for holdings one’s breath except in a suicidal attempt.
I like this statement, “In fact, the arctic is notoriously variable; similar statements are available for 1957, and the Skate surfaced at the N. Pole in 1959. So much for ‘unprecedented.”
Do the alarmists ever respond to Lindzen?
stu says:
November 18, 2010 at 7:44 am
“What’s not to love about this man.
I consider his a true HERO of our insane, post-normal times.”
Hear, Hear !!!!
The paradox of the faint young sun is solved by realising that once the planet was almost entirely covered in oceans. As the ocean crust began to move, the continents formed, and without life, became powerful reflectors of sunlight. The rate at which this happened made good the rate at which the sun warmed. To read more and to see the graph, visit:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate1.htm#faint_young_sun
This guy is good. And presents a well thought out, cogent and scientifically defensible counter to the alarmists arguments. No wonder the mainstream media and the warmists dislike him.
How many here will sign up to Lindzen’s summary?
that’s a good poll question.
“… tests of sensitivity independent of the assumption that warming is due to CO2(a circular assumption) show sensitivities lower than models show; the resolution of the early faint sun paradox which could not be resolved by greenhouse gases, is readily resolved by clouds acting as negative feedbacks….”
“Note that much of the ‘error’ in the regressions arises because radiatively important factors like clouds and aerosols vary due to many factors apart from SST. For observations there is also instrumental error, though relative errors over short time scales are likely to small.”
I’m not certain that the polysyllabic phraseology and scientific jargon will penetrate Congressional crania. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…Pelosis.
His point in earlier presentations is that it’s all about phase space. If the feedbacks are positive we have an unstable system, with the attending catastrophes and tipping points for any proposed warming from CO2 doubling. With positive feedback — we are *already* diverging. In short, it’s already too late, we’re up a creek — period.
If, however, you have *negative* feedbacks — the impact of CO2 doubling in minimized and mitigated.
So let’s “play scientist” eh? What does the paleo record show? Does the the Earth system show strong run-away warming events? Is there evidences of accelerated warming in the presence increasing CO2 levels? Have we in fact diverged and become either Venus or Mars at any time in our history?
Bonus points if you know what side of phase space we’re in. Thank you Mr. LaPlace.
Dr. Spencer has a short video on Accuweather, where he discusses the issues with modeling cloud behavior. Good to see some voices of reason getting some visability.
You just can’t “fool all of the people, all of the time”.
http://www.accuweather.com/video/28984389001/clouds-key-role-in-climate-change.asp
John Marshall says:
November 18, 2010 at 7:15 am
As the incoming energy increases so does the energy loss. The balance is maintained.
—
Yes, but the equilibrium shifts. The temperature (at sea level atmospheric pressure) will rise if the CO2 has any net effect. How much is the question, and what effect would that have on all terran life forms SHOULD be the question.
Steven Mosher says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:07 am
How many here will sign up to Lindzen’s summary?
that’s a good poll question.
========================================================
As in being in general agreement?
Well…I sent Richard Lindzen’s testimony to the UK Conservative Party Chairman’s office – this was the reply (in quick time, I have to say):
“Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing on behalf of Baroness Warsi to thank you for your recent email.
The new administration will be united behind three key principles: freedom, fairness and responsibility; and united behind one key purpose – to give our country the strong, stable and determined leadership that we need for the long term.
We have now published a document setting out the coalition’s programme for government. It explains the approach we will take in a series of important areas. You can read about our plans in more detail from the following link:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/409088/pfg_coalition.pdf
I would also like to highlight the latest news and announcements from the Department for Energy and Climate Change too. These details are on their website:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/
Thank you, once again, for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
David Beal
Correspondence Unit
Conservative Campaign Headquarters ”
Section 10 in the first link is just laughable, isn’t it? They just don’t get it.
Thanks for all of the good stuff that I read here – I used to say that, in my sixties, I would be happy to learn at least two new things every day – I’m easily topping that on WUWT.
Michael
James Sexton says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:36 am
Do the alarmists ever respond to Lindzen? “”
That is a leading question if ever I heard one.
“He is in the thrall of oil companies, out of his depth, out of his field, out of his mind, out of order, out of touch and an out and out cad and bounder”
The fact that he is right is not sufficient for any other responses – viz the swift answer to Michael T from HM gov above.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 6:24 am
Very interesting. Water evaporation is endothermic. The faster you evaporate water the faster and lower the temperature drops. So an increase in solar energy will make the oceans evaporate faster but at the same time it will cool them down faster and to lower temperatures.
I respectfully disagree. Skepticism is the honorable scientific position. Its opposite is gullibility, naivete, or unwariness. A readiness to believe the sky is falling even when it’s not.
Try this for the slide presentation:
Lindzen, Ph.D., Richard S. “Testimony Of Richard Lindzen To The Subcommittee On Energy And Environment, Committee On Science And Technology, U.S House Of Representatives, November 17, 2010.” Text. Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, November 17, 2010. http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf
REPLY: which is the same one I have linked in the story. – Anthony
Lindzen was exceptional because not only does he understand the true science, but he can also discern the true issues. No other panel participant was his peer in that aspect. GK
Lindzen is one heck of a cool chap – and deserves an awful lot of respect and credit for the way he conducts himself AND his presentations of the science
“It has been possible to account for the cycle of ice ages simply with orbital variations”
If “simply” is taken to imply without feedbacks then I would be delighted to read a reference supporting this.
If the models were truly physical there is no need to assume a positive or negative feed back. The true feedback sign should be an output of the model ,not an input.
richard telford says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:50 am
“If “simply” is taken to imply without feedbacks then I would be delighted to read a reference supporting this.”
Lindzen and Pan 1993
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/171nocephf.pdf
Henry Galt says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:08 am
James Sexton says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:36 am
Do the alarmists ever respond to Lindzen? “”
That is a leading question if ever I heard one.
======================================================
Heh, guilty. But also, an observation. I recall many rigorous detailed attacks on several skeptics. But I don’t recall any substantive attacks on Dr. Lindzen’s assertions. And here, in congressional testimony, he’s mocking the alarmists! Daring just one to directly challenge him. And then Heidi Cullen testifies……… Man, that is just beautiful!
A great response from a great man. One day they will toss out that old statue of Lincoln and replace it with a statue of Lindzen.