Predictions by climate models are flawed, says invited speaker at Sandia

July 25, 2012, Sandia National Laboratories

(Phys.org) -- Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.

“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said. “Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change.

In an effort to shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate, Sandia National Laboratories has invited experts from a wide variety of perspectives to present their views in the Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.

Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.

For major climates of the past, other factors were more important than carbon dioxide. Orbital variations have been shown to quantitatively account for the cycles of glaciations of the past 700,000 years, he said, and the elimination of the arctic inversion, when the polar caps were ice-free, “is likely to have been more important than CO2 for the warm episode during the Eocene 50 million years ago.”

There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”

Lindzen’s views run counter to those of almost all major professional societies. For example, the American Physical Society statement of Nov. 18, 2007, read, “The evidence is incontrovertible: is occurring.” But he doesn’t feel they are necessarily right. “Why did the American Physical Society take a position?” he asked his audience. “Why did they find it compelling? They never answered.”

Speaking methodically with flashes of humor — “I always feel that when the conversation turns to weather, people are bored.” — he said a basic problem with current computer climate models that show disastrous increases in temperature is that relatively small increases in atmospheric gases lead to large changes in temperatures in the models.

But, he said, “predictions based on high (climate) sensitivity ran well ahead of observations.”

Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”

He disparaged proving the worth of models by applying their criteria to the prediction of past climatic events, saying, “The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance.”

Modelers, he said, merely have used aerosols as a kind of fudge factor to make their models come out right. (Aerosols are tiny particles that reflect sunlight. They are put in the air by industrial or volcanic processes and are considered a possible cause of temperature change at Earth’s surface.)

Then there is the practical question of what can be done about temperature increases even if they are occurring, he said. “China, India, Korea are not going to go along with IPCC recommendations, so … the only countries punished will be those who go along with the recommendations.”

He discounted mainstream opinion that climate change could hurt national security, saying that “historically there is little evidence of natural disasters leading to war, but economic conditions have proven much more serious. Almost all proposed mitigation policies lead to reduced energy availability and higher energy costs. All studies of human benefit and national security perspectives show that increased energy is important.”

He showed a graph that demonstrated that more energy consumption leads to higher literacy rate, lower infant mortality and a lower number of children per woman.

Given that proposed policies are unlikely to significantly influence climate and that lower energy availability could be considered a significant threat to national security, to continue with a mitigation policy that reduces available energy “would, at the least, appear to be irresponsible,” he argued.

Responding to audience questions about rising temperatures, he said a 0.8 of a degree C change in temperature in 150 years is a small change. Questioned about five-, seven-, and 17-year averages that seem to show that Earth’s surface temperature is rising, he said temperatures are always fluctuating by tenths of a degree.

As for the future, “Uncertainty plays a huge role in this issue,” Lindzen said. “It’s not that we expect disaster, it’s that the uncertainty is said to offer the possibility of disaster: implausible, but high consequence. Somewhere it has to be like the possible asteroid impact: Live with it.”

To a sympathetic questioner who said, “You are like a voice crying in the wilderness. It must be hard to get published,” Lindzen said, adding that billions of dollars go into funding studies. “The reward for solving problems is that your funding gets cut. It’s not a good incentive structure.”

Asked whether  the prudent approach to possible would be to prepare a gradated series of responses, much as insurance companies do when they insure cars or houses, Lindzen did not shift from his position that no actions are needed until more data is gathered.

When another Sandia employee pointed out the large number of models by researchers around the globe that suggest increases in world temperature, Lindzen said he doubted the models were independently derived but rather might produce common results because of their common origins.

Explore further: How to get the message across on climate change

Related Stories

How to get the message across on climate change

October 27, 2011

For many scientists working in the field of climate research, one of the most alarming trends has nothing to do with the climate itself: It’s the poll numbers showing that even as scientific projections of global climate ...

Global warming could kill off snails

February 7, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Climate change models must be reworked in a bid to save some of the world’s smallest and slimiest creatures from extinction, a Flinders University PhD candidate warns.

1981 climate change predictions were eerily accurate

April 9, 2012

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections ...

Recommended for you

66 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Voleure
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2012
"He showed a graph that demonstrated that more energy consumption leads to higher literacy rate, lower infant mortality and a lower number of children per woman."
Lindzen should be more careful when throwing stones at the entire scientific community to keep his sponsors cards closer to his chest and not reach beyond the data for his ideology.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: Weve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.


I don't think he's considering all forms of energy gain in the heat budget, such as the heat of fusion and vaporization.

Dr. Jeff Masters and other leading meteorologists have shown that extreme precipitation events are in fact increasing slightly, and they are definitely enhanced by several percent per degree of increase in Sea Surface Temperature anomaly both on the oceans and on lakes.

In some cases there have been two or three hundred year floods in the same location within a two or three year span. The probabilities of this occurring randomly in nature ranges from one in ten thousand to one in a million.

Take a look at Lake Superior's SST anomaly, and then count the number of Derecho events we've had this year, most of which passed over the Lake or started right on top of it.
dogbert
3 / 5 (22) Jul 25, 2012
Wow. The voice of reason in a climate presentation.

Impressive.

Professor Lindzen is going to find research money to be increasingly scarce.

His integrity is as impressive as his vision.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 25, 2012
The AGWites use credentials of their experts to bolster their faith. (What are the climate credentials of Gore and the IPPC chare?).
But when a credentialed, well published climate expert from MIT challenges their faith, the AGWites must attack his motivations. One good reason to support tenure.
If you want to access his research:
http://www-eaps.m...dzen.htm
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (21) Jul 25, 2012
One positive sign is that Sandia is conducting these lectures and that physorg is posting the news.
Maybe real science isn't dead after all.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 25, 2012
rubberman,
As far as real science, what valid, scientifically based theory did he posit to explain the current warming?


That the computer models are wrong and that the variations are normal variances. That is, that there is no scientific evidence of it. Try reading the article.
tekram
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 25, 2012
Lindzen claims that the known amount of forcing on the system proves that CO2 will only have a small effect, yet makes plain in the subsequent paragraph that the total forcing (and hence what the planet should be reacting to) is quite uncertain (particularly before the satellite era). If the total forcing is uncertain, how can he say that he knows that the sensitivity is small? This issue has been dealt with much more seriously than Lindzen alludes to (as he well knows) and its clear that this calculation is simply too uncertain to constrain sensitivity on its own.
Lindzen publications http://www-eaps.m...RSL.html
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
But when a credentialed, well published climate expert from MIT challenges their faith, the AGWites must attack his motivations. One good reason to support tenure.
If you want to access his research:


I didn't attack his motives, I simply made some well known counter points which he seems to have somehow disregarded.

I don't need computer models to tell me something is screwed up with the planet, just look at the N. Hemisphere SST anomaly which has been off the damn scale for several weeks, with the region near Alaska being even worse today than it was the day before.

How the hell do you explain a region of ocean the size of Alaska having an 8 or 9C warm anomaly without reference to global or at least super-regional forcing?

Ok, about 80% of it is albedo feedback, but where is the rest of it? It must be the pollution, unless there's a new caldera the size of Alaska forming there...which would have been detected since bottom heating looks totally different from top heating...
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2012
rubberman,
Dogbert,Saying the models are wrong isn't a scientific theory to explain warming there fido. Try reading my question.


Try reading my answer (and the article).

Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: Weve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming. He disparaged proving the worth of models by applying their criteria to the prediction of past climatic events, saying, The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance."
Lurker2358
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
That the computer models are wrong and that the variations are normal variances. That is, that there is no scientific evidence of it. Try reading the article.


And you were just told that the normal variances, such as orbital parameters, should actually not be producing net warming at this time.

The Sun hasn't changed either, at least not in any known wavelength or particle ejecta. It's within normal variances of the modern record, although we just had an X1.1 class mega-flare, but that stuff has always happened as far as anyone can tell since the history of solar science.

So unless the Sun is emitting an unknown particle or wave, or some other unknown energy carrier and is doing so in larger quantities than in the past, we can rule out the Sun. Also, even if this was the case, it would leave questions of how that carrier could have gone undetected in the past, since present climate situations agrees with theory based on the known solar constant...
_tart_oving1
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 25, 2012
Lindzen! Oh, that bastion of sanity and humanity that for 30 years shilled, oh, I mean worked alongside the cigarette industry, who to this day denies vehimently that cigarettes cause cancer. Lindzen! Now shilling for, oh, I mean working alongside the fossil fuel industry! Thank you for having an article that focuses on this great creatures work! Hmmmm. You really want guilt by association with this fellow? Oh, never mind.
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2012
Any unknown solar energy carrier particle would need to be by-passing solar arrays and our scientific equipment, and bottom heating the Earth from the inside out (almost like in the 2012 movie for God's sake,) and that would probably take centuries or millenia to tell the difference in reality, not to mention the question of why such a particle or wave would suddenly be emitted in higher quantities while known particles and waves remain about the same. However, in the case of Neutrinos, some of them can penetrate straight through stars and planets, while it actually takes as much as 10,000 years for photons to escape the Sun's core, so in theory if the Sun was suddenly burning faster, there would be a 10,000 year lead time on the increase of neutrinos or other unknowns or unknown unknowns compared to photons.

However, that is too complicated and expensive to test, and besides even if it is happening there's not a damned thing we can do about it.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
The Sun hasn't changed either,

It changes all the time.
http://news.yahoo...211.html
http://www.swpc.n...arCycle/
Jeddy_Mctedder
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
this basic observation --that MONEY influences science-----is beyond the grasp of many liberals. They get the idea that money influences politics and that 'lobbyists' for big coal and big fossil fuel will fund 'climate denialism'. ---but yet, they are unwilling to take a critical look at what might be 'bad science' due to overfunding of 'climate change' associated research.

even if there is global warming, it is forbidden to take a critical look at any of the research that favors global warming. that is why the 'movement' has become a religious political social movement, rather than a movement of science. science doesn't work on 'movement's' in the traditional sense. it works based on a critical community that is supposed to arrive at a basic consensus of truth. the biggest threat to the scientific process is the corruption of the process by threats of violence, by groupthink, by corruption due to bribery.

it is a human affair after all.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
It would be better if "proponents" of global warming started proposing technological rather than political solutions to the problem. The other side's absolute refusal to see the science is fueled by fear of the politics of the solutions being proposed, not by the problem itself. Hence you will never, EVER convince them with evidence of any kind...period. You'll have about as much luck converting a christian fundamentalist to satanism.

Conversely you who do adhere to AGW are simply going to HAVE to give up your pet political projects and remove the controversy from the solutions.

You have to change the conversation...or remain caught in the gyre...totally your choice.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2012
3 of them also being in the top 5 most profitable.

1. What is wrong with profit?
2. How does 'most profitable' compare to other industries?
3. How much money is invested to acquire the oil?
4. How much 'profit' do govts make on the royalties and taxes oil companies pay and the taxes consumers pay for using the product?
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
The Sun hasn't changed either,

It changes all the time.
http://news.yahoo...211.html


That's a solar flare.

That's normal.
Claudius
3.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2012
Lindzen! Oh, that bastion of sanity and humanity that for 30 years shilled, oh, I mean worked alongside the cigarette industry, who to this day denies vehimently that cigarettes cause cancer. Lindzen! Now shilling for, oh, I mean working alongside the fossil fuel industry! Thank you for having an article that focuses on this great creatures work! Hmmmm. You really want guilt by association with this fellow? Oh, never mind.


"The sources draw a very weak link between Lindzen's views on smoking and lung cancer and his environmental contrarianism, but apparently he has not actually been involved in the tobacco denialist campaigns."

"In that case I would actually see it as an indication that he is acting in good faith. But that seems very hard (probably impossible) to use in the article."

Wikipedia article on Lindzen in Talk section.
Dr_Killpatient
3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
'Evil Oil Company' profit margins are quite slim, considering they produce a product that is patronized by the vast majority of human beings. Compared to a company like Apple, it's not even close.

Lindzen is a particularly painful thorn in the side of liberals. Their fury and spitting hatred at the thought of debate is quite telling.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
MM, fossil fuels are the backbone for the majority of energy production for every nation, the world in it's current state runs on money, 5 out of the 6 biggest companies globally are oil companies with 3 of them also being in the top 5 most profitable. Any "technological solution" to curbing emmissions will be and has been met with stiff opposition as it pulls money out of too many powerful hands.


Well if that's the case we're lost anyway. If big companies have the control you suggest it's silly to even discuss the issue.

Personally I've had enough discussions with enough people on the other side to know that most of them would politically support alternative energy...just not the kind that's usually supported on the AGW side.

In short both sides are going to have to compromise. IMO one side on the kind of alternative energy used, and/or other methods; and the other on the fact that something must indeed be done.

Dr_Killpatient
5 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
Profit and profit margins are two entirely different concepts. Exxon Mobil Corporation has a profit margin of 7.62%. Apple's is nearly 30%.

I reiterate: it's not even close.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
rubberman,
His opinion means shit without scientific evidence to back what he is saying, he doesn't have any. Opinions are what you and I have and apparently all he has as well.


Again, try actually reading the article. He said that the variation in temperatures is not significant -- that such variations are common:
Responding to audience questions about rising temperatures, he said a 0.8 of a degree C change in temperature in 150 years is a small change. Questioned about five-, seven-, and 17-year averages that seem to show that Earths surface temperature is rising, he said temperatures are always fluctuating by tenths of a degree.


He doesn't say what you want to say so you just don't admit that he has said anything. He has. Read it.
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2012
Dogbert, it's not what he says or doesn't say, it's what he can prove.


So, you want him to prove that something which does not exist does not exist?

Not very scientific, are you?

It should be sufficient to point out the lack of evidence for the claim of AGW. The burden of proof resides with the AGW group.
freethinking
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
AGW is real, the science is settled. We need to ban all feuls and eliminate 9/10 of the population. AS I SAID the science is settled, AL GORE and his minions said so. Just because he is getting rich off of AGW, just because he flys in his private jets, has lavish parties eating endangered animals, has ocean front mansions, and drives monster cars, does not mean he would ever lie.

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
Profit and profit margins are two entirely different concepts. Exxon Mobil Corporation has a profit margin of 7.62%. Apple's is nearly 30%.

I reiterate: it's not even close.

And this is where the 'progressives' like Buffet whine about not paying enough in taxes. Tax rates and the tax revenue are not the same. Buffet pays much more tax revenue than his secretary. Orders of magnitude I would guess.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
Re: "So unless the Sun is emitting an unknown particle or wave, or some other unknown energy carrier and is doing so in larger quantities than in the past, we can rule out the Sun."

Again, far too simplistic. We need to fund more studies of electric joule heating.

From http://csem.engin...mit6.pdf

High latitude Joule heating is one of the most significant energy deposition processes from the magnetosphere into the ionosphere-thermosphere system. During the January 1997 magnetic cloud event, 47% of the solar wind energy was deposited in the form of Joule heating, while 22% was in the form of particle heating ... During a typical storm, more than half of the energy is deposited through Joule heating ... Joule heating has significant consequences in the thermosphere and ionosphere. The obvious response is the rapid increase of temperature, which causes upwelling of the neutral atmosphere ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
[Continued]

... However, many global models have had a difficult time modeling Joule heating accurately [Codrescu et al., 1995]. Joule heating has been consistently underestimated because it is frequently assumed in general circulation models (GCMs) that the electric field is relatively smooth both in space and time. Codrescu et al. [1995] showed that the polar region electric field is variable and that the variability can significantly increase the amount of Joule heating ...

... The averaged and smoothed climatologies can only give poor spatial variability, since averaging massive amounts of data smears out extremes, which may, in fact, contribute significant amounts to the local, and possibly global, Joule heating.

---

My take: It's time to try to get a more detailed picture of what's happening with our ionosphere.
Jotaf
Jul 25, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Swemson
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
Lazarus Long, a character from a Robert Heinlein said: "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get"
The Medieval Warm Period lasted for several centuries. So did The Little Ice Age. Isn't it foolish to make long term predictions about climate based on short term changes in the weather?

If CO2 played a major role in determining earth's temp, how do you explain the period from 1940 to 1975 when CO2 levels were rising, and temps were falling?

How do you explain the fact that temps on Mars and Jupiter's moons rise and fall in perfect sync with the earth's? Does anyone think they have gas guzzling SUV's there? Isn't it more likely that the ever changing levels of solar activity is the real cause of these temp changes?

One of the most egregious part of the AGW hoax, is the claim that everyone agrees with the CO2 story. If so, why did Dr. Lindzen, along with 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs say its nonsense? See petitionproject dot org

fs

HannesAlfven
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2012
The word "denialist" really has no place in any disagreement over scientific arguments. Many people are legitimately unswayed by simulations constructed by researchers who clearly have an agenda. Ad hoc modeling simply lacks the certainty which we get with experimentation. Period. And those who are paying attention to astrophysics have already seen that these models have to be regularly updated, suggesting very plainly that they are simply wrong. And yet, people keep on using them.

Keep in mind that some of these physicists who program ad hoc models have also worked for banks -- the quants. When money is involved, people tend to care more about the models' accuracy. Granted, economics is the study of human behavior, which is not exactly a science. But, hey, human irrationality has serious consequences outside of economics, in the hard sciences too, where it can have a devastating impact upon the inferential step.

It simply goes by a different name there: confirmation bias.
Mac Lorry
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2012
Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect"

The question that needs to be asked is, can an atmosphere made up only of non-greenhouse gases like nitrogen and oxygen capture heat? At first many will say no, but there may be a mechanism where the answer is yes.

The Sun heats the surface and the non-greenhouse gas atmosphere is heated by conduction with heat transported aloft by convection. Being transparent to infrared, these gases cannot radiate heat away. As the atmosphere warms, convection slows and equalizes at a temperature higher than can be explained by black body calculations. Adding CO2 allows the atmosphere to directly radiate heat into space. The cooler atmosphere produces stronger convection and reaches a new equilibrium. At what concentration does the trapping of heat by CO2 overtake the cooling effect of CO2 and stronger convection? Maybe someone should study this.
Michael_Jones
3 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
Dr. Hansen has explained in detail why Lindzen's theories are incorrect in his book, "Storms of My Grandchildren".
Howhot
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2012
Lindzen is plain and simple an egomaniac. He argues his case based on twisted facts that he won't provide references to. Dr. Hansen has him pegged perfectly. As VD pointed out so well, he supported the testimony of the tobacco industry when they testified (and lied) about tobacco and it's health effects.

"After the second Task Force meeting, I shared a Taxi with Richard Lindzen.....I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. he had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems." - James Hansen


That Lindzen ignored the statistical correlations to side with tobacco industry in spite of obvious and apparent evidence seems to bring in to doubt an argument he has against Global Warming.
That to me, makes him a shill.

http://www.realcl...re-11099
Howhot
3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2012
To be honest, it's a black eye on MIT to have this loose cannon basically creating propaganda for his delusional denier class. Why are the Arctic and Antarctic melting? Why are most glaciers melting. Why does Greenland have a massive heat bubble over it? Why does the USA have a massive heat wave settling in, and what about Russia last year. Why is the ocean more acidic, or sea levels rising?

Nothing but denial and misdirection.



ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2012
"Doubt is the basis of all scientific progress."
T'Pol
http://ow.ly/i/Nrqj
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2012
Re: "Since denialists never provide valid scientific criticism, the label remains valid and appropriate."

This is utter nonsense. This is a philosophical problem (we don't know what we don't know) as well as an information overload problem (there's too much to know), a psychological problem (we exclusively look for evidence which supports our pre-existing biases), a peer review problem (we are only funding certain studies), and even a sociological problem (collections of scientists decide what theories to consider at the point of the inferential step).

People who ignore all of this are naive. The world is not so simple.
unknownorgin
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2012
The problem with most global warming studies is that the researcher has a biased opinion before the study starts so if a computer model or data shows little or no change then they are inclined to change the numbers for the noble cause of saving the planet. Most GW studies are focused on the amount of CO2 produced by man and not natural sources such as fires and volcanos and do not even address the carbon cycle or solar output and the fact that biomass (plants) increase with CO2 output but instead make dire predictions couched in words like "may" or "could result in". In short... Bad science.
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2012
So what is the actual plan to do something? How do we get something moving along? How do we get China on board without expecting them to stay in poverty for the next 100 years? What about India? Brazil?

Other than shell games like cap and trade and pipe dreams like running the entire world off of solar cells, what are we going to do or propose that might actually work?
anthonythompson
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2012
The actual temperature anomalies are below the lowest of all the predictions made by the modellers despite the fact that the growth of CO2 emissions has been higher than predicted. We now have 17 years with no statistically significant global warming. No sensible person can pretend there's nothing wrong with a theory that has so completely failed to predict accurately. In normal science when observations fail to comply with theoretical predictions, scientists question the theory. This doesn't happen with research into global warming. Why? Because too many research departments, too many careers, have become dependent on sustaining the flow of research grants which in turn depends on sustaining public fear of a catastrophe. We all know what would happen to all those government and industry grants if the researchers were to turn round and say: "Sorry but it seems that we were exaggerating the problem". So they don't.
Howhot
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2012
We now have 17 years with no statistically significant global warming.


That's HOG WASH! Here is a nice little graph for you;

http://www.planet...de/15221
Howhot
3 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2012
Also more HOG WASH,
oo many research departments, too many careers, have become dependent on sustaining the flow of research grants which in turn depends on sustaining public fear of a catastrophe.
That's rightwing Rush logic. You obviously have not a single clue as to how science works. This science is global, it's not just the USA.

You can cut off all the funding you want, but its not going to change the outcome. Global warming is an extinction event that man can avoid if you give up your stupid Rush brainwash.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012
So what is the actual plan to do something? How do we get something moving along? How do we get China on board without expecting them to stay in poverty for the next 100 years? What about India? Brazil?


Brazil gets it. India gets it. China is getting it. But the USA? We need to just push on the rapid development of green renewable energy sources to replace aging old coal and gas plants. All we need to do is lead the way by example and consumer demand.
If USA/Canada changed urban infra-structure to all electric vehicles and mass transportation it could be transformative.

Right On Right On VD.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2012
Here is another nice pretty picture the Rush deniers will hate;

http://cdiac.ornl...nhsh.png

And this is occurring as the solar input is decreasing, It should be getting cooler.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012
Brazil gets it. India gets it. China is getting it.


What exactly are they doing that's going to reverse the trend which will put their emissions far above ours in relative short order?

They talk the "party line", like they always do. The Chinese government is very good at saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite. And since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior I'm quite skeptical on their eventual honest cooperation in any meaningful way. Even if they did I've little doubt that along the current trajectory of carbon taxes and solar panels nothing that will be of actual practical value in helping the planet with materialize.

They are afraid, they are afraid of out military power. I would be too if I were them based on the irresponsible manner in which we use it. They are not going to reach parody with solar panels and wind farms. Again, change the conversation...
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2012
Howhot,
Also more HOG WASH, That's rightwing Rush logic. You obviously have not a single clue as to how science works. This science is global, it's not just the USA.


Not, you are spouting Hog Wash. AGW is a political agenda. It is world wide, but it is not world wide because of the science. It is world wide because of the socialist agenda which spawned it.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2012
What makes you think that they have any moral obligation to halt the trend until they are consuming energy as wastefully as Americans are, on a per-capita basis?


The same one we have?

You aren't really suggesting that in order for one person to stop stealing they should wait until all thieves are stealing less than they are...are you?

I admit I framed the initial post poorly.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2012
What I'm really trying to say is that they are not doing anything to stop their emissions from growing rapidly and that none of the proposals that are currently popular are likely to reverse their course...no matter how good it would be for them to do so.

Yarking_Dawg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2012
While good science relies on critical voices and research that constantly challenges held belief in order to keep it robust, I'm a bit concerned about the quality of this commentary. Not just Co2, good point, No one is going to stop China and India, another good point, but the argument about all of the Climate change claims are coming from the same source of data doesn't fit the reported science and some of the tangential points he makes are very troubling.

For example, I can only hope that he's work on climate is better than his understanding of the related topics he mentions. The following is flat out wrong.

"He discounted mainstream opinion that climate change could hurt national security, saying that historically there is little evidence of natural disasters leading to war."

A large natural disaster significantly increases the chances of civil unrest and war, (Richard Olson and Cooper Drury demonstrated this quite clearly.
anthonythompson
2 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2012
But the models are statistical in nature, and they make statistical predictions, not absolute forecasts.


Exactly. They are statistical models. The question is: How well do they represent the real world? Hansen first made his forecasts 24 years ago and so far the actual global temperatures are lower than the lower end of the statistical forecasts even though the rise in CO2 has been higher than predicted. We find the same pattern with all the IPCC forecasts.

At some point climate scientists must look up from their Ptolomeic-type models and start looking at the empirical evidence. Perhaps we need a Nobel prize for admitting you got it wrong.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2012
this basic observation --that MONEY influences science-----is beyond the grasp of many liberals

This attitude helps me understand the tactics adopted by extreme right-wingers. Add enough money and you can make science behave according to your desires. Witness evolution, cosmology.

Just curious, how much money would it take to repeal gravity? Or eliminate the speed of light? These laws are inconvenient, they make space travel unnecessarily expensive.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2012
Add enough money and you can make science behave according to your desires.

This what 'progressives' project onto those who challenge their 'science'.
MIT professor Lindzen's decades of work is disregarded if he is accused of being funded by Exon.
Meanwhile, Enron supported the Kyoto treaty and Jim Hansen and that's acceptable.
And off course anyone who works for a university is beyond reproach if he only accepts govt funding.
How you reconcile someone like James Anderson, of the Anderson Group, who has his own research group? http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
You don't think he must seek out funding opportunities to stay 'in business'?
SatanLover
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2012
its flawed in a way but it still pretty accurate.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2012
Wow. It is really odd how a contrarian such as Lindzen, characterized by the community as not "intellectually honest", gets his beliefs out in the media. Especially since he offers no alternative theory to predict the GW, just like all other denialists.

You shouldn't throw stones when you are in a greenhouse.

@ anthonythompson:

Hansen's model did well, the uncertainty was in other factors but if you look at the CO2 part they were spot on. Amazing for such old predictions!

@ ryggesogn2:

There is a difference between economical support to do propaganda, which is what Lindzen does in the absence of science results, meaning Lindzen is bought, and contributions to do independent science. In the latter case you can note that the papers declare them, declare any other pertinent interests or declare independence, and those declarations are subject to peer review.

Is Lindzen's funding openly declared? Your description of "he is accused" implies that there was some digging involved.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2012
If anyone wonders why the denialist hot air machine goes warm, besides the obvious climate extremes showing up, it is likely because token denialist Muller with his BEST analysis has 'converted'. http://dotearth.b...warming/

"Heres Currys reply:

I was invited to be a coauthor on the new paper. I declined. I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I dont think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming.

I really like the data set itself. It is when they do science with it that they get into trouble."

TL;DR: The data is fine, AGW is fine, Muller has had a dog and pony show which nobody enjoys but at least he is sticking it to the science denialists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2012
How is the Anderson Group funded?

http://www.arp.harvard.edu
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
Ah, so in your opinion Americans don't have any moral obligation to consume less until they are consuming at the same per-capita rate as themselves.


Uh no I think you totally misunderstood my first post, then proceeded to more than completely misunderstand my second one. Re read ALL my posts on the thread carefully and try not to assume or put thoughts into my head or words in my mouth.

I'm saying that ALL countries equally have a moral obligation to stop what they're doing no matter where they are on the scale. The comparisons to America were to illustrate that China is currently doing nothing whatsoever to curb it's emissions despite some assertions to the contrary upthread.

This is the problem when you jump into the middle of a conversation and make too many assumptions.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
There has unfortunately been dishonesty associated with the notion of AGW since Carl Sagan's Super Greenhouse Theory, many decades ago. It's ancient history by now, but people should realize that when we first sent probes to Venus, a number of probes reported back that Venus' temperature was originating from the planet's SURFACE -- NOT ITS ATMOSPHERE. This was a major problem for Carl Sagan and the like, because it confirmed Immanuel Velikovsky's hypothesis that Venus is a new planet. Velikovsky, incidentally, did not make that claim up. He merely translated it from a large number of ancient mythological texts, which oddly enough, seem to concur on this point.

Since the data did not fit the established wisdom for how planets form, the data was either THROWN OUT or "NORMALIZED" to reflect the theory. They ASSUMED thermal equilibrium.

Charles Ginenthal discusses the absurdity of it all in quite a bit more detail in a YouTube lecture at http://www.youtub...7JmUhl8.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
It's really quite stunning how the textbooks fail to mention this critical point. Most -- or all -- AGW promoters surely don't even know about this, and will surely try to dismiss it's relevance. But, think carefully about this: The Super Greenhouse advocates were -- quite logically -- predicting that Venus' surface would be a desert. Immanuel Velikovsky had few options on this point: The planet *HAD* to be covered in volcanoes. Ginenthal explains in the video that his support for Velikovsky's theories hinged entirely upon volcanoes on Venus. Without them, Venus could NOT POSSIBLY be a young planet which appeared in the sky in human-historical times, as numerous ancient cultures try to convince us.

Anybody who applies critical thinking to the situation should at least raise an eyebrow at the apparent prevalence of volcanoes on Venus: Do we really think that the planet could be so heated by the greenhouse effect to cover it in volcanoes and magma?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
Three small probes carried net flux radiometers carried externally, and a larger probe carried an infrared radiometer internally, which viewed the atmosphere through a window. All of these instruments measured the infrared flux of the Venereal atmosphere.

In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed infrared fluxes which the scientists could at least think about living with; as they descended, however, all began to show very large net fluxes UPWARDS, which is what you might expect if Velikovsky's view of Venus were the correct one.

"Below the Venus cloud deck both LIR and SNFR flux measurements appear to affected by serious errors..."

Icarus Magazine, H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E. Suomi of the Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison (1982)

The probes landed in 1978.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
"...Although the LIR [large probe enclosed instrument] measurements might be correctable, using the multispectral information of the data to deduce the magnitude of the asymmetry, no reliable corrections have yet been obtained [by 1982 three years after the fact] ... Thus we cannot at this time make use of the LIR results..."

Here is the important part, guys. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION:

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of CO2."

The idea that four separate instruments of two different sorts, three carried externally and one internally all telling the same story MIGHT possibly just be correct does not even occur to the scientists.

(Tip of the hat to Ted Holden for digging this important analysis up ...)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
To be clear -- for those who don't quite understand that last quote -- what they are saying is that Carl Sagan's Super Greenhouse Theory was assumed to be correct, in spite of the data, by making a sweeping assumption that the planet Venus is in thermal equilibrium. Without that assumption, the science would have gone into a completely different direction. Talk about confirmation bias!

When we talk about global warming, we should also discuss its controversial origins as a theory -- because this gives the skeptics an important clue on which direction the science *should* have gone if data truly did supersede theory.

For a very detailed discussion with sources, see http://www.skepti...lib.htm.
BobArmstrong
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2012
I've always appreciated Lindzen's emphasis that this whole profoundly stupid fraud against the building block of the biosphere is about near noise level variations in temperature .

A 33% change in CO2 , from about 3 molecules per 10k of air to 4 , is associated with about a 0.3% change , from about 288 to 288.8 in our temperature , It is hard to argue for some striking non-linearity at our particular temperature which would cause another increase in CO2 equal to the total we've seen since before the industrial revolution to cause much more than another 0.8 degree increase in our temperature -- even if CO2 is the sole cause of that 0.8 degree change .

On the other hand , the alarmists never want to admit the basic fact that because CO2 is near the lower end of the amount needed to sustain green life , plants are thriving with the additional bit we are restoring to the biosphere .
cl415
1.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
Listen to all of you!!!!!!!! You sound like a bunch of Washington politians, not the scientists you claim to be. Everyone pushing their agenda to obtain the research funds they want, in fact, you are more like lobbyists rather than scientists.

The fact remains that mother earth has been around a long time and has been through many cycles. When is everyone going to see that we are definitely in a cycle. Are we in a permanent "climate change" remains to be seen. Everyone wants to come up with the golden answer tomorrow. It is like today's business world, the 5 and 10 year business plan are gone, only buisness that returns profit in the next 5 minutes is useful, no matter who it hurts. An answer to the cycle/climate will only come with time, when enough "good" data is accumulated, not just data to make a model work or to support one's own agenda.
Shootist
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2012
Dogbert,Saying the models are wrong isn't a scientific theory to explain warming there fido. Try reading my question.


Colder now than during the Medieval Climate Optimum. There are no dairy farms in Greenland.

Colder now than during the Roman Climate Optimum. There are no vineyards in Scotland. Vineyards also take several decades to over a century to mature. Oh well, there were vineyards in Scotland during the Medieval Climate Optimum, as well.

Howhot
not rated yet Aug 01, 2012
Excellent videos Vendi. If the AGW deniers would like to convince me that the science is wrong, they would need a video like the Yale forum on Climate Change and the Media and answer point by point every climate change event. Watts-up-with-that is a bastion of deniatards that has a drought of gray matter.

It just show the point that the USA needs to take immediate action by taxing off shore tax-havens to shifting resources government resources towards green sustainable energy sources, like solar for example.

dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2012
Howhot,
It just show the point that the USA needs to take immediate action by taxing off shore tax-havens to shifting resources government resources towards green sustainable energy sources, like solar for example.


Your comment is a confirmation of what I have been saying, that AGW is not about climate, it is about seizure and redistribution of resources -- i.e. socialism.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.