[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 soco...@princeton.edu 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand it does get at least some hits. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea ding-newsweek-op-ed/ As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them hard to counter without getting into a more detailed discussions than most non-scientists will read (or even appreciate the significance of). The alternative form of response of trying to compare credibilities (pitching greater credibility of IPCC or leading scientists, saying he takes money from industry, etc.) runs into arguments he has supporting his credibility, namely being at MIT and an NAS member, etc. and being a put upon victim of the scientific establishment. And pushing for investigative reporter articles requires them really getting into details, often beyond the level of scientific expertise they want to get into. Basically, to his credit (and unlike other Skeptics), Lindzen at least some times offers alternative testable scientific explanations, sometimes with claims of observations support, rather than just making wild assertions (e.g., his high cloud explanation which took a good bit of scientific work to get into; my view of the key problem was his rather hidden assumption, in interpreting the satellite data, that the world is composed of unconnected 1-D vertical models and horizontal circulations make no difference in local conditions). Ideally, he and his students would test his hypotheses (e.g., that higher surface temperatures lead to such strong convection that they dry the upper troposphere, in terms of absolute rather than relative humidity) by trying to formulate them for inclusion in a model and seeing if they work or don't in detailed models of the world. He often rather cavalierly leaves that to others, and when other scientists have taken that on they have found that his hypotheses just don't work out (e.g., to explain how orbital element variations can lead to glacial cycling if the climate sensitivity is low, he has argued that relatively evenly spread forcings like CO2 have a small sensitivity, but spatially distributed ones like orbital elements generate a large response---plausible hypothesis, but then one would expect that the present sulfate aerosol loading that is similarly hemispherically and seasonally contrasting should have a really large response compared to the CO2 response, and we don't see that--in observations or models). It seems to me the really credible scientists capable of responding effectively are those who have done these tests (a number of them being in the GISS group), but it does require the scientists and the listeners to devote a good deal of attention to detailed aspects of the science--and there are just too many out there who won't listen to what they don't want to hear. So, in many cases, it just seems much more productive for scientists to go off and do good new science and leave Lindzen as an unfortunate side-show while those who want to believe in his comments invite him to all sorts of visible forums. Looking at Lindzen's latest presentation in the UK, virtually all of his slides would need to be commented on--starting with his statement that climate is always changing. Well, yes and no, he gives no bounds here, no indication about how much change, and so on and on and on. Nice catch phrases, and scientific responses would take many more words than he puts on his slides. So, with a response, it is a lot more detail than a generalist might really want to get into, and without a response, the event appears as a prominent addition to his list of eminent groups he was invited to speak to. Quite a challenge to overcome to broaden the appreciation of the very difficult climate situation we are in. Mike MacCracken On 3/1/12 11:25 AM, david jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: 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
RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 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 soco...@princeton.edu 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr
RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
To counter Lindzen's arguments, it bears to be remembered that decarbonisation need stands on its own feet even without any climate warming issue, due to ocean acidification. IF one rejects climate change, there is still plenty of scope to argue for geoengineering such as Carbon Dioxide Removal. And the melt-away of North Pole's perennial marine snow and ice cap, melting Greenland, glaciers and thawing of permafrost all agruge for global warming effect as polar regions act as the heat dump of the world (especially in dark seasons). Regards, Albert From: soco...@princeton.edu To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:07:57 + 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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 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 soco...@princeton.edu 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
Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand it does get at least some hits. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea ding-newsweek-op-ed/ As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them long snip - including two earlier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Ron--On your questions: 1. I don’t recall there being a rebuttal to my 2007 response; easier I guess just to ignore it. 2. Not other than what was in his Powerpoint as presented to the UK panel, where he seems to suggest that it is just part of a large fluctuation, and there have always been changes. Just as Fred Singer does, he basically slides by hard questions like this. 3. I have not seen a response (yet) to Bill Nordhaus comment. And given you liked the response to Lindzen and may be a glutton for punishment, there are a couple of other detailed responses of mine at climatesciencewatch.org --see: Response to a paper by Will Happer at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/09/21/maccracken-v-happer-the-real-t ruth-about-greenhouse-gases-and-climate-change/ Comments on talk by Roger Pielke Sr at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2009/06/01/michael-maccracken’s-review-of -roger-pielke-sr-’s-may-14-climate-talk-to-the-marshall-institute/ Response to article by the Robinsons (the ones who made their paper look as if it had been published in PNAS) is at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2008/07/25/michael-maccracken’s-analysis- of-errors-in-robinson-robinson-and-soon-2007-contrarian-article/ On David Legates at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2006/06/11/refuting-a-global-warming-deni er/ (and there is also somewhere a legal declaration responding to one of his in a court case some years ago) Mike MacCracken On 3/2/12 3:43 PM, rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-sm acks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-sla ms-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburneru tm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progres s%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skepti cs-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand it does get at least some hits. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea ding-newsweek-op-ed/ As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them long
Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Eugene: 1. Apologies for using the term denier on this list - probably should not have. But in this case I am still torn on the appropriate label. I'd like your opinion in this specific case. 2. My defense is that I have recently tried to read more of Dr. Lindzen's material and found that he so defines himself with that label Proof 1 (obtained by googling) : At motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/fred-singer-and-skeptics-vs-deniers.html the author says Richard Lindzen likes to call himself a proud denier, too. I surely see his point. Proof 2 www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/11/21/the-rise-and-fall-of-climate-change-denial/ author: Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT says he prefers the term denier to skeptic. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic.” 3. I am sure there are many more such possible quotes and self-quotes (I had a different one, that I can't find.) But, nevertheless, maybe I shouldn't have used his own label. Ron - Original Message - From: Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.net To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, mmacc...@comcast.net Cc: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:52:37 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons It is a sick use of the term to characterize someone who disagrees with the magnitude and urgency of the situation as a denier. That is equivalent to saying, I am right, I know best and anyone with a different view is denying my superior wisdom. That is a head shaker, From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:43 PM To: mmacc...@comcast.net Cc: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? ( or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi ) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com , Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed
RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
It is a sick use of the term to characterize someone who disagrees with the magnitude and urgency of the situation as a denier. That is equivalent to saying, I am right, I know best and anyone with a different view is denying my superior wisdom. That is a head shaker, From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:43 PM To: mmacc...@comcast.net Cc: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.ht ml The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus- smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-s lams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburn er http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus- slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedbur nerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+ Progress%29 utm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Pro gress%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skep tics-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron _ From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand it does get at least some hits. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea ding-newsweek-op-ed/ As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them long snip - including two earlier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
The fact that Lindzen took the wrong view on smoking says nothing about his views on global warming. PERIOD! Lindzen has a view. He does not call it a theory. Hansen has a view; he should not call it a theory. The situation is the science is premature. The hypothesis of AGW is not robust even if highly suggestive, and certainly there is room for differences of opinion and different causes. Consensus has no relevance in science. Why does this have to invoke personalities? -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 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 soco...@princeton.edu 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Lindzen has asserted he does not like being called a skeptic because he prefers that people call him a denier. Eg: when he was interviewed on BBC's One Planet October 3 2010. A recording is available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009yfwl Here is a transcript of the portion of the show where this topic came up: BBC interviewer Michael Williams: Professor, I described you a little earlier as a 'climate skeptic', a shorthand for which I hope you will forgive me, I'm sure you don't doubt the existence of the climate itself Lindzen: Well you know I also don't like that word particularly. Williams: So what should I use? Lindzen: Well, its a good question. Let me explain why I don't like it. You know to be skeptical assumes there is a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think we're dealing with a situation where there's not a strong presumptive case. [...they drift off into discussion of another topic then return to this issue] Williams: OK, you don't like the word 'skeptic'. Do you have a suggestion? I've read a couple of suggestions. 'Denier' is apparently unacceptable Lindzen: Yeah well, I actually like 'denier'. That's closer than 'skeptic' On Feb 28, 8:23 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: There is a problem of language here. I am a 'climate skeptic'. A 'skeptic' is defined as someone who is inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. All good scientists should be skeptics. --- What we have here is denialism, not skeptiicism. I suggest that Lindzen's problem is a failure to adequate doubt or question opinions that he has accepted. The problem is that Lindzen is not enough of a skeptic. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-cho...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzen...http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-b... On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.netwrote: The response is very clear. Lindzen has his view, Hansen has his view (I happen to go along with Lindzen) but the science is not well established and it is early times. However, the earth is warming and has been for 10,000 years without benefit of CO2 increase, and based on past history will continue to warm until it gets to a global average close to 25 C. That is not tolerable, not even a few degrees more, so in time we will want to have a well tested and certain means to control/limit the increase. That is where Geoengineering comes to the rescue. The rest of the story is obvious. We must support Geoengineering research. -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:01 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof Lindzen, who has featured here before, gave a presentation to a group at the UK House of Commons last week in a bid to repeal the UK Climate Act which obliges successive UK governments to limit UK carbon emissions. The presentation can be seen here http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=12ved=0... BOAourl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02148%2FRS L -HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdfei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQusg=AFQjCNH019U0I402 8 x7SEHStI22GvYkZIgsig2=7DUiD5yixLzYZYfJMtvS0whttp://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=12ved=0... and if you Google - Lindzen house of commons - you'll come up with a lot more comments from the skeptic community. (See alsohttp://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Casefor an equally professional skeptic appeal.) As a social scientist and not able to make informed judgements about what purports, at least, to be informed evidence- based climate science. I cannot imagine that the majority of policymakers will find it any easier than I do. If there is any substance to Lindzen's claims should others not be recognising it and reflecting it in their work? If there is no substance to it, shouldn't others be openly refuting his claims by explaining in detail why either his facts are wrong or his argument is invalid? The skeptics don't have to win this argument they just have to sow sufficient doubt to engender indecision, something which some might think is easily achieved with most politicians and even more so when the proposed actions are so far reaching as those implied by decarbonising the global economy or geoengineering. The downward trend in interest in climate change amongst the lay public suggests that the skeptics are winning the political argument. What is to be the response? Robert Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to
RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
I am not sure Lindzen is a denier. He simply has his own preferred lower value (compared to Hansen) for the warming in degrees produced by defined increases in CO2 concentration. That is hardly being a denier. Nor do I see myself as a denier. However, I don't have an opinion about the ratio other that when the truth is known I suspect Lindzen will be closer than Hansen. All the factors contributing to warming have not yet been determined or quantified and it is amazing to me that people have strong opinions about that ratio. As a successful engineer and scientist with many important projects under my belt I have always practiced contingency planning when one deals with uncertainty. I see geoengineering as an important form of contingency planning. You guys are doing great given the limiting funding available. -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of david Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:37 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Lindzen has asserted he does not like being called a skeptic because he prefers that people call him a denier. Eg: when he was interviewed on BBC's One Planet October 3 2010. A recording is available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009yfwl Here is a transcript of the portion of the show where this topic came up: BBC interviewer Michael Williams: Professor, I described you a little earlier as a 'climate skeptic', a shorthand for which I hope you will forgive me, I'm sure you don't doubt the existence of the climate itself Lindzen: Well you know I also don't like that word particularly. Williams: So what should I use? Lindzen: Well, its a good question. Let me explain why I don't like it. You know to be skeptical assumes there is a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think we're dealing with a situation where there's not a strong presumptive case. [...they drift off into discussion of another topic then return to this issue] Williams: OK, you don't like the word 'skeptic'. Do you have a suggestion? I've read a couple of suggestions. 'Denier' is apparently unacceptable Lindzen: Yeah well, I actually like 'denier'. That's closer than 'skeptic' On Feb 28, 8:23 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: There is a problem of language here. I am a 'climate skeptic'. A 'skeptic' is defined as someone who is inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. All good scientists should be skeptics. --- What we have here is denialism, not skeptiicism. I suggest that Lindzen's problem is a failure to adequate doubt or question opinions that he has accepted. The problem is that Lindzen is not enough of a skeptic. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-cho...http ://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzen...http://w ww.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-b... On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.netwrote: The response is very clear. Lindzen has his view, Hansen has his view (I happen to go along with Lindzen) but the science is not well established and it is early times. However, the earth is warming and has been for 10,000 years without benefit of CO2 increase, and based on past history will continue to warm until it gets to a global average close to 25 C. That is not tolerable, not even a few degrees more, so in time we will want to have a well tested and certain means to control/limit the increase. That is where Geoengineering comes to the rescue. The rest of the story is obvious. We must support Geoengineering research. -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:01 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof Lindzen, who has featured here before, gave a presentation to a group at the UK House of Commons last week in a bid to repeal the UK Climate Act which obliges successive UK governments to limit UK carbon emissions. The presentation can be seen here http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=12ved=0... BOAourl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F021 48%2FRS L -HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdfei=9tdMT6--DOTH0QXlzpSeBQusg=AFQjCNH01 9U0I402 8 x7SEHStI22GvYkZIgsig2=7DUiD5yixLzYZYfJMtvS0whttp://www.google.com/ url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=12ved=0... and if you Google - Lindzen house of commons - you'll come up with a lot more comments from the skeptic community. (See alsohttp://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Casefor an equally professional skeptic appeal.) As a social scientist and not able to make informed judgements about what purports, at least
RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
As you say, there is uncertainty, and I would disagree with anyone who had a preferred value rather than acknowledging uncertainty. It is possible that Lindzen's lower value is correct, it is possible that Hansen's value is correct (whatever those might be - though I do think the available data provides some constraints on the lower and upper bound). While we might have different opinions about the probability distribution, I think it is fair to label Lindzen a denier for denying the possibility of high sensitivity. So yes, I am amazed that Lindzen has a strong opinion that seems inconsistent with available evidence. doug -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eugene Gordon Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:12 AM To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons I am not sure Lindzen is a denier. He simply has his own preferred lower value (compared to Hansen) for the warming in degrees produced by defined increases in CO2 concentration. That is hardly being a denier. Nor do I see myself as a denier. However, I don't have an opinion about the ratio other that when the truth is known I suspect Lindzen will be closer than Hansen. All the factors contributing to warming have not yet been determined or quantified and it is amazing to me that people have strong opinions about that ratio. As a successful engineer and scientist with many important projects under my belt I have always practiced contingency planning when one deals with uncertainty. I see geoengineering as an important form of contingency planning. You guys are doing great given the limiting funding available. -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of david Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:37 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Lindzen has asserted he does not like being called a skeptic because he prefers that people call him a denier. Eg: when he was interviewed on BBC's One Planet October 3 2010. A recording is available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009yfwl Here is a transcript of the portion of the show where this topic came up: BBC interviewer Michael Williams: Professor, I described you a little earlier as a 'climate skeptic', a shorthand for which I hope you will forgive me, I'm sure you don't doubt the existence of the climate itself Lindzen: Well you know I also don't like that word particularly. Williams: So what should I use? Lindzen: Well, its a good question. Let me explain why I don't like it. You know to be skeptical assumes there is a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think we're dealing with a situation where there's not a strong presumptive case. [...they drift off into discussion of another topic then return to this issue] Williams: OK, you don't like the word 'skeptic'. Do you have a suggestion? I've read a couple of suggestions. 'Denier' is apparently unacceptable Lindzen: Yeah well, I actually like 'denier'. That's closer than 'skeptic' On Feb 28, 8:23 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: There is a problem of language here. I am a 'climate skeptic'. A 'skeptic' is defined as someone who is inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. All good scientists should be skeptics. --- What we have here is denialism, not skeptiicism. I suggest that Lindzen's problem is a failure to adequate doubt or question opinions that he has accepted. The problem is that Lindzen is not enough of a skeptic. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-cho...http ://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzen...http://w ww.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-b... On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.netwrote: The response is very clear. Lindzen has his view, Hansen has his view (I happen to go along with Lindzen) but the science is not well established and it is early times. However, the earth is warming and has been for 10,000 years without benefit of CO2 increase, and based on past history will continue to warm until it gets to a global average close to 25 C. That is not tolerable, not even a few degrees more, so in time we will want to have a well tested and certain means to control/limit the increase. That is where Geoengineering comes to the rescue. The rest of the story is obvious. We must support Geoengineering research. -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:01 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof
