An Interview with Dick Lindzen

  • Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
  • AAAS-emblem-with-canvas-border.jpg

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
  • ACS-emblem-with-canvass-border.jpg

    American Chemical Society
    "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
  • AGU-emblem-with-canvas-border.jpg

    American Geophysical Union
    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  • AMA-emblem-with-canvas-border.jpg

    American Medical Association
    "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
  • AMS-emblem-with-canvass-border_133x75.jpg

    American Meteorological Society
    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
  • APS-emblem-with-canvass-border.jpg

    American Physical Society
    "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
  • GSA-emblem-with-canvass-border.jpg

    The Geological Society of America
    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
 
FC, It's just my personal opinion, but I think you would be more credible if you would address the science rather than hurling personal insults. There is less and less in your posts that adds anything of value to the discussion.
 
FC, It's just my personal opinion, but I think you would be more credible if you would address the science rather than hurling personal insults. There is less and less in your posts that adds anything of value to the discussion.


bite me you lying piece of shit.
 
Of what relevance is the "Medieval Warm Period"?
It is true that there is data out that indicates that period was warmer than our current climate. The current climate is apparently not unprecedented, as some in the media have claimed.

Something i've been thinking about recently, and Lindzen's comment in that talk he gave to the House of Commons tells me he is thinking along the same lines, is that if the Hansen Hypothesis is correct and there is a positive feedback so that a little extra CO2 leads to an exponential rise in temperature, then none of us Homo species should be here today, because we have lots of evidence in the paleo record of periods when CO2 was higher than it is today. If Hansen is correct, positive feedback would have driven the temperature through the roof.. (Salby thinks CO2 was up to 15 times higher than indicated by the ice core record. He says the CO2 determinations in ice cores were not properly corrected for diffusion. Others say that diffusion is not significant.)

We even have a few periods, long ago, when CO2 was very high but temperature dropped followed be a decline in CO2 concentration. I'm inclined to think that M. Salby is correct and that temperature is a primary driver of CO2 concentration, and not the other way around, as required by the Hansen Hypothesis. I tend to put more weight on the work of those I know to be top notch scientists and dismiss that of others that have less experience, and certainly don't pay much attention to the popular press and media. But we are all human, and we all make mistakes from time to time. When we get emotionally involved in an issue is when our objectivity goes out the window. This issue seems to have been popularized and politicized more than any similar issue I can think of during my long lifetime. That's going to make it much harder to make the right decisions when it comes to policy. I wonder if it is the profit motive that's behind the hype. Is Goldman more powerful than Exxon, or just more skilled at manipulating public opinion?

The current pause in temperature increase is being explained by the alarmists as a hiding of the thermal energy in the deep oceans. They are saying that we are not experiencing higher temperature because the temperature of the deep oceans is rising rather then the surface temperature. The climate experts say that that is a normal cyclical mechanism.
 
It is true that there is data out that indicates that period was warmer than our current climate. The current climate is apparently not unprecedented, as some in the media have claimed.

Whether or not some other period in the distant past was warmer or not is irrelevant. What matters is the reasons for the current increase. If it is man-made, and the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of opinion are that it is, there is no reason to believe that it will coast to a stop at the same level as at the MWP, nor is there any reason to believe that it will not get worse and reach a tipping point from which there will be no retreat. To dismiss something as a normal cyclical mechanism that we just happen to trigger and exacerbate will be of little comfort to those who must suffer through it.
 
piezoe you are so full of shit that it's not even funny. Again with the fool/fraud/whore Murray Salby who the real scientists laugh at. Why is everyone of the scientists you refer a fool or fraud or whore to the fossil fuel interests? It's like if you say the name enough there will be some respect conferred.

*******************************************************************


A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth.

There is a close analogy to be drawn between the way an ordinary thermostat maintains the temperature of a house, and the way that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) control the global temperature of Earth. The ordinary thermostat produces no heat of its own. Its role is to switch the furnace on and off, depending on whether the house temperature is lower or higher than the thermostat setting. If we were to carefully monitor the temperature of the house, we would see that the temperature does not stay constant at the set value, but rather exhibits a "natural variability" as the house temperature slips below the set value and then overshoots the mark with a time constant of minutes to tens of minutes, because of the thermal inertia of the house and because heating by the furnace (when it is on) is more powerful than the steady heat loss to the outdoors. If the thermostat is suddenly turned to a very high setting, the temperature will begin to rise at a rate dictated by the inertia of the house and strength of the furnace. Turning the thermostat back to normal will stop the heating.


Figure 1. Attribution of individual atmospheric component contributions to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, separated into feedback and forcing categories. Dotted and dashed lines depict the fractional response for single-addition and single-subtraction of individual gases to either an empty or full-component reference atmosphere, respectively. Solid black lines are the scaled averages of the dashed and dotted line fractional response results. The sum of the fractional responses must add up to the total greenhouse effect. The reference model atmosphere is for 1980 conditions.
+ View larger image or PDF

Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect. Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. Together with the similar non-linear responses involving the ocean heat capacity, the net effect is the "natural variability" that the climate system exhibits regionally, and on inter-annual and decadal timescales, whether the global equilibrium temperature of the Earth is being kept fixed, or is being forced to re-adjust in response to changes in the level of atmospheric GHGs.

This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm, which is representative of the interglacial maximum level of atmospheric CO2. During ice age extremes, the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to near 180 ppm, for which the global temperature is about 5 °C colder. The rapid recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human industrial activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This has pushed atmospheric CO2 toward the 400 ppm level, far beyond the interglacial maximum. The climate system is trying to respond to the new setting of the global temperature thermostat, and this response has been the rise in global surface temperature by about 0.2 °C per decade for the past three decades.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
 
Following allegations of an overlap between funding applications, the National Science Foundation began an investigation in March 2005. It advised the University of Colorado, which sought information from Salby but he did not cooperate with this investigation. In October 2006 the university produced its investigation memo, and suspended Salby's privilege of submitting proposals from the university as well as restricting his access to university research facilities. In 2007, Salby was on sabbatical in Australia. Before the university made its final adjudication, Salby resigned from his faculty position. The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying "a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies" and a "consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit."
 
In this article I'm going to show how silly Murry Salby's "hypotheses" are (as archived here). There's a lot of "wrong" with Salby's efforts but two things stand out the most in my view:

  • Murry Salby is a greenhouse effect denier and
  • Murry Salby thinks billions of tonnes of carbon can disappear off the face of the earth by magic.


Following on from my last article, Anthony Watts has posted a few diagrams of Murry Salby's, provided not by Murry but by Christopher Monckton. I don't know who wrote the text. I'll take the opportunity Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton have provided to do what HotWhopper does - demolish disinformation.

This will be a dull article, I'm afraid. Murry Salby's slide series ranks with this "stupid" list I compiled some months back. It's mind-numbingly stupid - not earning the "stupid and funny" ranking of "OMG it's insects".

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/denier-weirdness-defending-indefensible.html
 
Back
Top