Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT speaks at EIKE in Germany on Models vs. Measurements in April 2014, the video was just recently made available on YouTube.
His conclusion: Real science in any case it is not what many climate modelers present as science. It’s more a kind of religion. Watch the video lecture below, it is well worth your time. (h/t to Bernd Felsche)
I pulled out two good quotes right off the bat:
“For the advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming, the role of models is not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible. As they understand, proving something to be impossible is itself almost impossible.”
“That said, it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gasses is solely the computer models. The relation of this sensitivity to catastrophe, moreover, does not even emerge from the models, but rather from the fervid imagination of climate activists.”
— Dr. Richard Lindzen
Unfortunately, he goes wrong from the start. The 255 deg K emission temperature of the atmosphere does not exist. it is the flux-weighted mean of three main zones; +15 deg C H2O, -50 deg C CO2, ~0 deg C H2O.
This means that as CO2 IR changes, it can be offset by emission from the iuppwer cloud level:
Discuss…….the atmosphere self-controls so there is no CO2-AGW!
and the “affable”, “not controversial”, Michael Mann talks to Joshua Holland at BillMoyers.com!
12 June: Bill Moyers.com: Joshua Holland: Six Things Michael Mann Wants You to Know About the Science of Global Warming
There is nothing controversial about the work of climatologist Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center…
It’s another story in the realm of politics, where Mann, an affable scientist, has been dragged into the fray by diehard climate change deniers. He was a central figure in the trumped-up “climategate” scandal, accused with other scientists of fraud by conservative bloggers and pundits before being vindicated by eight separate independent investigations. He was later the subject of an “academic witch-hunt” by former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli until a circuit court judge ruled that Cuccinelli had provided no “objective basis” for his crusade.
But if he began as an unwilling combatant in the public debate, he has since become a fierce defender of scientific discourse. He’s currently suing for defamation the National Review, right-wing columnist Mark Steyn and the Competitive Enterprise Institute — a libertarian think tank dubbed “a factory for global warming skepticism” by The Washington Post that has received funding from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and Arch Coal, among others.
Mann believes that climate change “skepticism” could not exist if the public had a better understanding of how science works — if they got that climatology is based on the same scientific method as any other field of knowledge.
BillMoyers.com spoke with Michael Mann, and here are six things he’d like you to understand about the scientific consensus on global warming…BLAH BLAH BLAH…
http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/12/six-things-michael-mann-wants-you-to-know-about-the-science-of-global-warming/
enjoy…
I’ll add one more quote from Dr. Lindzen concerning extreme weather:
“This is one of the crazier things. ‘Extreme weather’ is pure propaganda. The IPCC itself acknowledges no relation. That’s important to understand. They have said that.”
Thanks for this Anthony. It was well worth the time, even if I only understood 60% of it. (and I’m an engineer since 1970, with a physics degree)
Wonder if Al Gore would like to debate Dr. Lindzen ?
Good presentation. Dr Lindzen drags a bit, but he is very understandable.
hahahahaha…anyone who thinks the baby boomers’ retirement funds haven’t been earmarked for CAGW looting, isn’t paying attention. from $16 trillion to $48 trillion to $53 trillion – whatever. desmog’s Sharon doesn’t blink!
13 June: Desmogblog: Sharon Kelly: Over $48 Trillion Energy Investment Needed by 2035, IEA Report Concludes
That’s a massive jump from the $16 trillion predicted the last time the report was fully updated in 2003.
“The headline numbers revealed by this analysis are almost too large to register,” the IEA World Energy Investment Outlook special report notes…
***The report was written with input from officials from some of the world’s largest and most powerful investment firms, including Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Barclay’s Capital, along with major energy companies like Shell, Schlumberger and General Electric…
The report concludes that it would cost a total of $53 trillion to shift to an energy policy that would allow the world to keep climate change below the critical 2 degree threshold…
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/13/over-40-trillion-investment-needed-keep-energy-demand-2035-iea-report-concludes
Louis says:
June 13, 2014 at 10:47 pm
Indeed. But the volcano’s not meaning a strong feedback is more in line with observations. All climate theories overturned.
Dr. Lindzen’s grasp of the atmospheric process is amazing. I learn a great deal every time I listen to him. I loved the part about the PDO, “it is neither decadal nor an oscillation”. LOL
Warmists love to proffer that they can make sense of the changes in climate and add a measure of finite predictability – morons all, or at least they must think everyone they preachi to are.
Snapshot of the lecture’s slide can be downloaded here. https://db.tt/638fD1Ys
Still not close to reality.
Thanks Anthony. Thanks Dr Lindzen.
Anth0ny:
Many thanks for providing the link to Lindzen’s very fine summarising lecture. Do you know of a link to the remainder of the lecture, please? It stops at ~49 minutes and my searches have failed to find a link to a second part or a longer version.
There is much to like in the lecture.
My personal favourite is his statement that climate changes by amounts similar to putative AGW without any change to forcing but as a result of variations to thermal distributions induced by oceanic effects. Of course, my liking for this is probably prejudiced by it being the main point I have been arguing (including on WUWT) since the early 1980s about why the AGW-scare is an exaggeration.
Again, thanks for informing about the lecture and presenting the link to it.
Richard
pat says:
June 13, 2014 at 11:35 pm
Maybe the costs will not be so much.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/low-cost-fusion-project-steps-out-shadows-looks-money-n130661
I’ll have to go through this a few more times to really appreciate it.
But, on first pass, why does he talk about “x” Kelvin?
Pedantic, I know, but it really grates for me.
Sorry, seem to have got my basic HTML wrong.
John Coleman says: “I loved the part about the PDO, ‘it is neither decadal nor an oscillation’. LOL”
“At least it’s in the Pacific.”
I’ll try a third time then go away.
“x” degrees |Kelvin?
Levelg:
If you are objecting to them saying ‘kelvins’ instead of ‘degrees kelvin’ that seems to be the new ‘correct’ way of speaking.
Don’t think you are alone – I still want to say (and often do say) centigrade instead of celsius.
@Old Crusader
“Kelvins” is correct. “degrees Kelvin” is not.
The “new correct” is incorrect.
But then again I’m just a”old” fart 🙂
Perhaps someone might give me a job as a line editor. But probably not. 🙁
> Still not close to reality
I’ll pop back later and see if you’ve backed that up with something that makes you look less like a petulant child.
Lindzen also made an interesting talk for a group called Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
linked below :
How Science can be Politically Useful
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/#comment-561918
PDO “At least it’s in the Pacific.”
…..but what about volcanoes?
Cooling? short-term burst, well understood and documented.
Warming? yes, for highly productive eruptions, some in the immediate years, and some decades, centuries even millennia later, cumulative.
Well understood but not documented.
Louis,
Thank you for these lovely Lindzen quotations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/13/dr-richard-lindzens-talk-at-eike/#comment-1661852