Let me try again. Dick Lindzen has presented a science argument, to the effect that one can infer the climate sensitivity from sea surface temperatures and satellite measurements of radiation. This idea needs to be dealt with on its own terms, it seems to me, for the sake of the climate science community's credibility and because, just conceivably, there is something interesting in there.
This is a revised version of work that Lindzen published earlier. The first time around, others found a serious error, and Lindzen acknowledged it. Isn't this the way science is supposed to work? Probably someone has already reviewed Lindzen's revised work. It was suggested that an earlier note to this group had included something of this sort, but I couldn't find it. Rob -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of david Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:26 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Regarding Robert Socolow's idea that Lindzen's case may need more adequate refutation: Richard Kerr published an article in Science in 1989 describing Lindzen's argument and his place in climate debate entitled: "Greenhouse skeptic out in cold". The article describes Lindzen in the way some still do, i.e. "no other US skeptic has such scientific stature". Lindzen cast doubt on climate science: "the research has hardly begun". Kerr quoted Lindzen assessing what was known: "both the data and our scientific understanding do not support the level of concern". Kerr described what Lindzen said was the foundation of his case in 1989: "what Lindzen has now is not so much a complete model as an idea about how control of atmospheric temperature works. Indeed, he describes it himself as an idea of a theological or philosophical nature". Now Robert Socolow suggests there may be something lacking, i.e. some "absence of a direct refutation" of the Lindzen analysis. I wonder. Its theology. He's got acolytes. What are mere scientists supposed to do? Kerr quotes Mahlman who directly refuted Lindzen's idea in1989: "I know of no observational evidence supporting it". Kerr also quoted Schneider: "Does he have a calculation, or is his brain better than our models?" How many nails have to be driven in? Mahlman again: "Lindzen is a smart person, but I'm afraid he's confused" What has changed about Lindzen, his position, or about how climate scientists view his arguments, since 1989? Decade after decade, Lindzen has failed to support his arguments with data in a way that would convince other scientists, yet decade after decade, the general public is informed by enough opinion leaders that they should take Lindzen's opinion as credible that many still do. Refuting him is still necessary, but the fact that many pay attention to him has nothing to do with how convincing his case is. Hansen published a story of a time he shared a cab with Lindzen after both had testified to a White House Climate Task Force, in his book "Storms of My Grandchildren", pages 15-16. Hansen: "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". Hansen didn't ask that question during that cab ride, but he says he did ask Lindzen later, at a conference both were attending: "He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous with his views of climate data". Kerr's article, "Greenhouse skeptic out in cold." was published in Science 246.4934 (1989): 1118+ >On Mar 1, 4:01 am, "Robert H. Socolow" <[email protected]> wrote: > Might it not be fair to expect the public to reject Dick Lindzen's testimony, > in the absence of a direct refutation of his analysis? Is it really enough to > assert that he has been wrong before? > > Lindzen starts from sea surface temperatures and satellite measurements of > radiation and infers that negative feedback dominates the climate system. > Surely someone in this google group can provide the rest of us with a careful > explanation of where his reasoning is problematic -- or can lead us to a > paper which does thIs. > Rob > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
