Posts Tagged ‘Lindzen’

Is catastrophic global warming, like the Millennium Bug, a mistake?

Thursday, July 5th, 2012

Source:  UK Independent

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

At a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by “settled science”. They’re not new, but some of them were new to me.

Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes half this increase to human activity.

Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.” (more…)

Earth’s Thermal Sensitivity to a Doubling of Atmospheric CO2

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

Source: CCR

Reference
Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.-S. 2009. On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL039628.

What change in the mean surface air temperature of the planet would be caused by a doubling of the air’s CO2 content? In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the most likely range for this thermal sensitivity parameter, as determined by numerous climate models, is something in the range of 2 to 4.5°C; yet even this significant degree of warming has been suggested by many of the world’s climate alarmists to be too small. And as a result, a great hue and cry has been raised by folks such as Al Gore, who is hard at work attempting to convince everyone that they have a moral responsibility to “save the planet” by demanding legislative actions designed to drastically reduce anthropogenic CO2emissions. (more…)

Why global warmists hate climate skeptics

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

OPINION

Source: World Net Daily

by John K. Swayze

To the shock of many on both sides of the debate, the New York Times recently published a generally respectful feature article on Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who has been among the world’s most prominent “climate skeptics.” But while the article is mostly respectful, it certainly points out that Lindzen is widely hated by the climate alarmists – whether the scientists, the politicians, or the grass-roots environmentalists.

As is so common in the culture of today, one of the chief reasons why many people hate Lindzen is that he wins debates and makes compelling arguments against what is supposedly the prevailing wisdom. His sharp wit is evident: “[T]here are the numerous well-meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.” (more…)

Sound, Fury And The Policy Of Climate Change

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Source:  Forbes

by Pat Michaels

Last week, in fulfillment of a 2008 Act of Congress, our National Academies of  Science published “America’s Climate Choices” [ACC], another in a numbing succession of groupthink reports predicting the end of the world unless the U.S. dramatically reduces its emissions of carbon dioxide. Pronto.

Documents like this aren’t really intended to change anyone’s mind. Rather, they are designed to be used by unelected regulators as scientific cover for what our legislature refuses to do, which is to enact expensive and intrusive restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide.  The penultimate iteration of this was something called the “Synthesis Report” of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 2009 screed that the Environmental Protection Agency used as a scientific cover for new rules on fuel economy and regulation of power plants. (more…)

Rear Mirror: IQ2 Debate: Global Warming is not a Crisis

Monday, March 14th, 2011
Source:  Intelligence2

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A CRISIS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007

MEDIA TRANSCRIPTS, INC.

41 WEST 83rd STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10024 (212) 362-1481

PROGRAM Intelligence Squared U.S.

Global warming is not a crisis

BGT NO. .

BEGIN TAPE

BRIAN LEHRER

I want to introduce to you, Robert Rosenkranz, Chairman of the

Rosenkranz Foundation, the sponsor of this evening’s debate,

who will make some opening remarks. [APPLAUSE]

ROBERT ROSENKRANZ

Thank you, Brian, and, and welcome to all of you. I’m Robert

Rosenkranz, Chairman of Intelligence Squared, which is an

initiative of the Rosenkranz Foundation. With me tonight is Dana

Wolfe, the Executive Producer of this, series of debates. I see a

number of, uh, a lot of familiar faces in the audience but also a

lot of newcomers. So let me just say a word about why we’re,

we’re doing this. It’s really with the intention of raising the level

of public discourse in this country. It comes from a feeling that,

uh, political conversations are just too rancorous and that, this

nation could benefit from a forum for reasoned discussion of, key

policy issues. The topic tonight is, is one that, uh, has attracted

an enormous amount of, of interest. The proposition: Global

warming is not a crisis. And the, panelists are going to try to

persuade you to vote for or against the motion. Uh, ultimately

your votes will decide which side has carried the day. Uh, well,

Media Transcripts, Inc. (more…)

IPCC Studies And Reports Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Source: Canada Free Press

by Dr. Tim Ball

Every prediction or projections, as the IPCC evasively call them, have been wrong

Most people have no idea what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studies. They believe their reports are complete reports of climate change. This misconception is mostly because the IPCC arranged it and does little to correct it.  In fact, they only look at that portion of climate change caused by humans. Here’s how they limit their study.

“The definition of climate change the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.” (more…)

NASA Climategate Exposed

Friday, January 15th, 2010

[SPPI Note:  The Smith-D’Aleo paper mentioned in this press release was commissioned by SPPI, and the full copyrighted version will be released and posted at SPPI in the next few days.  We consented for a shortened version to be used by John Coleman for his program.  All five segments of the program can be viewed here:  http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html ]

*********

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “the warmest year on record.”

KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on January 14 at 9 p.m. EST. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14 at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf. (more…)

Our Heart to Lord Christopher Monckton

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Source: Courtesy of American Thinker

December 21, 2009

by Jane Jamison

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change (UNCCC or COP15) in Copenhagen has concluded with no treaty , no “agreement”, no “goals” other than trivial ones, no “enforcement” provisions, and no “reparations” to third world countries, whom do we thank?

The person credited with the first, most credible denouncement of man-made global warming is MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who presented a paper in 2005 called “Is the Global Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?”

There are the unknown conscientious “objectors” who, just prior to the UNCCC, released thousands of emails and documents proving decades of fraud by the “global warming” institutions and “scholars.”  Then came the many scholarly websites (junkscience.com, wattsupwiththat.com, climatedepot.com, icecap.us, cfact.org, sppi.org—to mention just a few) and the scientists who worked over-time analyzing the leaked documents.  They have pieced together at least twenty years of “faked” global warming graphs and organized suppression of opposing points of view.

Many of us had perhaps “heard” of the Copenhagen climate summit in recent years, but knew only that it was some sort of kooky follow-up to the Kyoto Treaty, which President Bush had refused to sign.

If it were not for the charismatic and diligent leadership of one man, America and the rest of the industrialized world might not have understood the expense and the socialistic aspects of the proposed Copenhagen treaty until it was way too late. Let us send a “heart” out to the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, otherwise known as Lord Christopher Monckton of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), for his tireless efforts in the past two months. (more…)

Higher rainfall increases outgoing long-wave radiation

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

From Dr. William Gray

I have just heard that NASA has a new satellite in orbit that can directly measure CO2 content in the atmosphere and that these new measurements are beginning to show that there is a positive association between increased rainfall (from higher CO2 gas amounts) and suppression of outgoing long-wave radiation.

This is to be expected in and around the areas of precipitation – but not necessarily in the broader global-scale areas surrounding precipitation where return flow mass subsidence is driving the water vapor radiation emission level to a lower and somewhat warmer temperature. (more…)

Climate science Q&A: warmest decade on record?

Saturday, December 12th, 2009

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

We are happy to answer this query from a reader about recent global temperature trends.

Dear Lord Monckton, – The UK Meteorological Office has just issued a statement that the past decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Is this true?

Dear Enquirer, - Yes, it is true - assuming that we can any longer believe the surface global temperature record, which we now know to have been so widely tampered with by the compilers of all of the major terrestrial-temperature datasets that, in particular, we do not really know whether the 1930s were warmer than the 2000s worldwide: they certainly were in the US.

It is also worth pointing out that for nine full years, since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling. This cooling follows a very sharp upward step-change in global temperatures between 1997 and 2000, which may have something to do with the Great El Nino of 1998, the first in the instrumental-temperature era. Of this cooling, one of the key players in the Climategate email scandal had this to say -

 

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August 2009 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

 

So the conspirators are privately admitting we’ve been right all along about global cooling, and that it’s a travesty they can’t explain it, while publicly proclaiming that this decade’s temperatures are the warmest in 150 years and that this is because of “global warming”.

 

Finally, I recently sat at the feet of Professor Fred Singer, to whose attention I had drawn an interesting paper by Lindzen and Choi (2009), demonstrating that the radiation escaping from the Earth to space, as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is not being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere to cause warming down here, to anything like the extent that the models predict.

 

The Professor looked very closely at the diagram showing the anomalies in short-wave and, separately, in long-wave radiation, and noticed that, though both had run level until 1997 (and, indeed, there had been no “global warming” from 1980 to 1997), they had been sharply dislocated until 2000, when short-wave radiation ran level at a new and lesser flux, while long-wave radiation ran level at a new and greater flux.

 

The significance of the Professor’s sharp-eyued observations is this. First, the sudden step-change upward in global temperature between 1997 and 2000 is the only warming since the satellite record began in 1980. Before it, there was no warming: after it, there was rapid cooling. It is important to understand that this non-uniform pattern of warming is entirely inconsistent with the steadily-increasing radiative-forcing effect of CO2 concentrations increasing at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade, and cannot, therefore, have been caused by it, for lack of correlation necessarily implies lack of causation.

 

Secondly, the diminished short-wave radiation after 2000 indicates a reduction in cloud cover, for the clouds reflect short-wave radiation harmlessly back to space. The reduction in cloud cover (whose cause is not clear, for we know exasperatingly little about cloud formation, and this on its own introduces an uncertainty into all climate calculations that renders the claim that “the science is settled” laughable) allows more of the visible and hence high-energy solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, where it is displaced to the long-wave and can then interact with greenhouse gases on its way out. This sudden increase in long-wave radiation, attributable to the sudden loss of cloud cover indicated by the loss of short-wave radiation reaching the satellite, is quite enough to explain why temperatures have been higher since 2000 than before.

 

The bottom line: careful attention to the observational data provides explanations for the pattern of temperature change that are much less incomplete and more satisfying than CO2, CO2, CO2. The Professor and I differ on the extent to which phenomena such as changes in cloud cover are deterministic: he looks for a climate in which all influences are eventually explained and understood as causative sequences, while I go with Edward Lorenz (1963), who said that because the climate is mathematically chaotic the reliable long-term prediction of what will happen next in the climate is unobtainable by any method.

 

However, the Professor and I are at one that the warming of the past 300 years, during 280 of which we could not have been in any way responsible, is all or very nearly all natural. Both of us will be doing more work on why there was a step-change upward in temperature from 1997-2000; but, even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2′s warming effect, CO2 cannot – repeat cannot – have been to blame.

If the Climategate conspirators had been less politicized and less dishonest, they would have been having conversations of this kind, rather than working out ways of bending the data so as to blame more than half of the warming from 1975-1998 on CO2. – Monckton of Brenchley