Lindzen, Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria 2of3 - Anatomy of a Con Job

{edited June 10th AM - for typos } 

"Citizenschallenge, you are the one who chose to make personal attacks and dishonest ad hominems about James Taylor*, The Heartland Institute and the scientists in his article.  

You want videos from climate scientists? No problem,Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw 

How many more do you want? I know you have been brainwashed to not believe there are highly credentialed scientists who do not support your position on climate change but please don’t make it so obvious."

*He's referring to "James Taylor Caught Doctoring the '97-Percent Consensus' Claims"  http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-taylor-caught-doctoring-97.html

With that invitation I took up the video, it turned into a huge project that needs to get split between three posts.  Here is the second installment. Lindzen's 2009 Competitive Enterprise Institute is at my first installment. Lindzens words are in courier font.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

19:25  "... on the other hand the anecdotal stuff can be much more dramatic so even though on the diagrams not much is going on here is a statement: "the arctic ocean is warming up icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot ... reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the arctic zone. Expeditions report that's scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as eighty one degrees twenty nine minutes..."

~ ~ ~

Lindzen is talking about this:

The Changing Arctic: Monthly Weather Review 1922

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dr. Ed

Monthly Weather Review, November 1922, page 589.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/01/arctic-sea-ice-a-climate-chang

~ ~ ~

But he presents this occurrence as if it stands in contradiction to modern climatological understanding, which it certainly isn't.  This event has been studied and compared to our current situation

The early twentieth century warm period in the European Arctic.
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
http://www.zora.uzh.ch/77123/ 

~~~ 

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment stefan @ 5 December 2004 | RealClimate.org 

In early November 2004 the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) were published, a uniquely detailed regional study compiled by 300 scientists over 3 years.
 "In fact, the conclusion of the ACIA study that the recent warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases is of course not based on one particular time series, but on a host of further scientific data.

For example, looking at all the temperature data rather than just one time series reveals that the pattern of warming of the 1930s was very different from the recent warming. In the 1930s, warming was localised to the high latitudes, consistent with this warming being the result of a natural oscillation (the so-called “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”).

Very similar natural oscillations are also found in climate models. The recent warming, in contrast, encompasses most of the planet; this is consistent with it being the result of a global forcing. A very similar pattern of warming is found in climate models as a result of rising greenhouse gases. (For full details, see the publication of Johannessen et al., Tellus 2004).

Many other lines of evidence demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic forcing was very likely the dominant factor in the warming of recent decades."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/ 

~~~

"...Here, we show that the early twentieth-century warming was largely confined to north of 60◦N, whereas the latter warming encompasses the whole Earth (Jones et al., 1999) but is none the less significantly enhanced in the Arctic ..."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2004.00060.x/asset/j.1600-0870.2004.00060.x.pdf?v=1&t=hhl8oei4&s=5f50c35e5839b29d93dae7a4e898bcd56eb08eb9http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

~~~

Oh speak of the Global Heat Distribution Engine

Did the North Atlantic play a role in the tumultuous weather conditions and the Indian drought in 1918?
By Dr. Arnd Bernaerts – web edition January 2010

~~~
Arctic-Warming - Can the Warming in the Early 20th Century be explained?
http://www.arctic-warming.com/what-offers-modern-science.php

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

20:30  "... any way (MIT) President Hockfield graciously replied to my question - without as usual answering it...

~ ~ ~

Now Lindzen is on to another political anecdote and taking another slap at IPCC in the process... didn't Lindzen tell us this talk was going to be about our climate.

Why must he bring up these personal issues? Besides, President Hockfield's reply made sense.  Below the 23:00 minute quote, you'll find link to the MIT colloquium. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

21:12  "... it's important to notice here she has not looked at the IPCC report, she went to someone who has of funny little program, they said it was in the IPCC."

~ ~ ~

What presumption, more and more Lindzen is coming across to me like the flunking student lashing out at his instructors.  But because Lindzen is the accepted authority, his audience gives him a free ride.

Incidentally, here you can look at what the IPCC actually reported:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/fig/figure-2-5.jpeg

~~~

Note:  Please remember the IPCC doesn't produce this data, they are simply collecting, compiling and sharing what scientists from throughout the world have published.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

21:31 "... it does reveal something very characteristic of the current presentation of this issue mainly any and every statement is justified by an appeal to authority, rather than by scientific argument..."

~ ~ ~

Lindzen claims on this "good authority" that: "Any and every statement is justified by an appeal to authority..." no examples, just another sweeping absolutist statement, the irony is rich indeed.

Here is another one of those rhetorical jujisu moves - Lindzen makes it sounds as if 'appeal to authority' is automatically cause for rejection.  Yet how would you ever fly in an airplane if you didn't give in an appeal to authority.

And of course, it is true that media reports of this issue do appeal to the authority of experts.  Why shouldn't they?

I challenge you dear skeptic go visit SkepticalScience.com and read an article.  You'll probably find a few "appeals to the authority" of the authors of whatever study or issue is being reviewed.

However, you will also find links that take you back to the original science to look at the details of said study.

In other words, Lindzen's lamentations about the overuse of Appeal to Authority is only a rhetorical device.  I wonder if his listeners recognize (or even care) how much of his talk is based on the pure "appeal" to Lindzen's own resumed "authority"?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

21:50 "Holdren says, how can so many societies approve of this if it isn't true and he avoids any discussion of the science..."

~ ~ ~

In fact, if you look into the background of those society statements you'll find much thought and investigation has gone into them.  But Lindzen won't share those facts.

Scientific opinion on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

22:00 "... in fact the last time i've heard this was the last friday President Obama did exactly this at MIT.  On the one hand he was calling for a sound science and critical analysis on the other hand he was calling for the marginalization of naysayers concerning global warming..."

~ ~ ~

Well yea.  What's the problem with that?

A look at our Earth makes clear we have a radically and deadly serious situation on our hands, one where we have already wasted three, four decades worth of precious irretrievable time.

The naysayers can, and do, come up with an infinite variety of dog-chasing-tail complaints and questions... all the while ignoring (in fact, doing all in their formidable power to shout down all learning about it) the unassailable fundamentals of our global heat distribution engine's reaction to an increasingly insulated atmosphere, which can only increase the energy content within our climate. 

Seems to me with a little critical thinking it's becomes clear why more energy within our biosphere equals intensified circulation and weather patterns.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

22:20  ... as an aside, an appalling feature of the present environment that this kind of abuse of scientific integrity..."

~ ~ ~

Lindzen hasn't actually shown any abuse!  But, in the Michael Crichton style of story telling, Lindzen never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.  Slice and dice the facts, then rearrange into a salable formulation.  Good 'ol fiction writer's license.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

22:30  "... this kind of abuse..."23:00 "... be that as it may..."

~ ~ ~

Oh boy, talk about conspiracy ideation - now he trot out Gore... bad man... the guy who shanghaied the whole scientific process...

It's pure political theater.

Not a bit of serious interest in our global heat distribution engine. 

Allow me to remind us what we should be thinking about:

What We Know about Climate Change

greenman3610

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

In this video we'll go over some of the fundamental discoveries, thebasic facts that we know beyond a doubt, about global warming.Of course, many people will never believe science, because they believe thatanything that challenges their world view, is all part of a secret,global conspiracy.
Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from 

Outward longwave 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/... 

Trends in Forcings 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cg... 

Downward Longwave Radiation 

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/u... 

Downward Longwave Radiation 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009... 

29000 data sets, press release: 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new...  

29000 data sets 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2... 

Global Energy Imbalance: 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2... 

Isotopes:http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/is...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

23:00  "... followed by John Holdren the President's science adviser, I have some slides from the MIT podcast of the event. I've enhanced them so that the text is clearer.  It was a meeting on clean power building a new clean energy economy and John Holdren..."

~ ~ ~

About the list of items Lindzen disputes actually make more sense than he's willing to admit.  Rather than chasing Lindzen's words here, I'd just as soon share these links to the actual MIT colloquium, and the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI)  so you can see for yourself:

MIT to host clean energy policy forum  

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/mitei-event-adv-0407.html 

~~~
Agenda for the forum
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/clean-power-agenda.pdf 

~~~
At MIT forum, Markey announces energy bill hearings 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/mitei-event-0413.html 

~~~
Webcast of the colloquium
http://amps-web.mit.edu/public/amps/webcast/clean-energy-economy-13apr2009/ 

~~~
http://globalwarming.markey.house.gov/files/WEB/ACESPacket/ACESCleanEnergyPlan.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

23:25  "John Holdren  begins with insights from climate science climate changes happening faster than previously predicted..."
 23:30  "... emissions concentrations, temperatures and sea level all rising at or above those of earlier IPCC high scenarios..."

~ ~ ~ 

Lindzen dispute all of this, so we are left with the question: who is more trustworthy an outcast extremist scientist with an ax to grind and a regal sense of his own authority, or the work of thousands of independent observers and scientists over decades of time?

Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases Nov 03, 2011
http://phys.org/news/2011-11-biggest-global-gases.html 

~~~
(also see Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (Thomas A. Boden, Director), which includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases, has served as the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 1982.)
~~~
IPCC overestimate temperature rise? 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming-advanced.htm 

~~~ 

Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
http://skepticalscience.com/rahmstorf-foster-cazenave-2012.html 

~~~
The CO2Now Climate Sheet 

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/the-climate-sheet.html 

~~~
Research: Sea-levels rising faster than IPCC projections
Nov 28, 2012 

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-sea-levels-faster-ipcc.html 

~~~ 

Sea Levels Rising Faster Than IPCC Projections
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128093911.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At around 23:45 Lindzen rejects the suggestion that "... significant harm to human being well-being is already occurring..."

~ ~ ~

While you may disagree with me  - here's some independent and authoritative evidence that should give pause to doubters:

NCAR/UCAR - IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE ENVIRONMENThttps://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/impacts-global-warming-natural-systems 

~~~ 

Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warminghttp://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/worst-effects-global-warming.htm 

~~~ 

The World Bank report: "Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided" 

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf 

~~~ 

EPA: Future Climate Change
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

23:55  "... and uh, science is emerging that tipping points into disastrous conditions could happen sooner rather than later - interestingly none of these statements is true..."

~ ~ ~

There are an awful lot of working experts who disagree with Lindzen's blithe dismissal.

US Department of Transportation -
"Climate Tipping Points: Current Perspectives and State of Knowledge" 

http://climate.dot.gov/about/overview/climate_tipping_points.html 

~~~  

"Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere"
Nature 486, 52–58 (07 June 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11018 

 Localized ecological systems are known to shift abruptly and irreversibly from one state to another when they are forced across critical thresholds. Here we review evidence that the global ecosystem as a whole can react in the same way and is approaching a planetary-scale critical transition as a result of human influence. The plausibility of a planetary-scale ‘tipping point’ highlights the need to improve biological forecasting by detecting early warning signs of critical transitions on global as well as local scales, and by detecting feedbacks that promote such transitions. It is also necessary to address root causes of how humans are forcing biological changes. 

~~~ 

Tipping points in the Earth systemTimothy M. LentonSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK 

http://researchpages.net/esmg/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/ 

~~~ 

Ytube - Earth May Reach Tipping Point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlU5-cixpZM

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

24:00 "Actually, none of these statements is true - at least as concerns anthropogenic warming!"

~ ~ ~

Considering all the evidence to the contrary, it seems inconceivable that a serious scientist can dismiss these concerns with such hubristic absolutism.

But, his audience accepts Lindzen appeal to his own authority and buys it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

24:10  "To be sure, CO2 is increasing, but that does not constitute climate change per se."          also at         26:00 "no physical basis the suggesting tipping points"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OK, I'm no PhD, but still this statement sure sounds like pure crazy-making !

Either CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, or it is not.

Either society is injecting unbelievable quantities of these gases into our thin atmosphere or not.

Except for a few cranks who misunderstand and dispute the basic laws of physics, {within their own isolated world, free from the prying eyes of real experts - that "science in a vacuum"} it's the rare practicing scientists who denies that CO2 and other greenhouse gases aren't well understood.

Heck, let's think about this and consider that everything from heat seeking air to air missiles, to advanced astronomical observations, to satellite communications wouldn't be possible without a thorough and accurate understanding of our atmosphere and the radiative properties of all it's constituents. To denial the scientific understanding is to deny all these modern marvels.

Then we must also realize that the "natural" level of those gases has been fluctuating between ±250 and ±300 ppm for the past millions of years - now in one century we have amped up that concentration by a 100 ppm to a level of 400 ppm and rising. 

Show us an experiment where you can increase major reactive constituents by 30% and not effect the outcomes of said experiment.

~~~

also see

For the story behind the above graph visit:

"Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report"http://phys.org/news174234562.html~~~

Also look at the IPCC's documents rather than taking the 'word' of agenda driven contrarians.

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html 

5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

24:15  "... hundred year sea level projections for the IPCC is 1.26 inches for ten years.  It's not readily distinguishable from the change that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age..."

~ ~ ~

Once again Lindzen is being way less than honest considering all the information he withholds from his audience.  To begin with Lindzen's claim: "rate of rise is indistinguishable from the ... end of the last ice age" is a gross misrepresentation:

Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

~~~

The IPCC sea level numbers
RealClimate.org | stefan @ 27 March 2007 -  

 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

"The sea level rise numbers published in the new IPCC report (the Fourth Assessment Report, AR4) have already caused considerable confusion. Many media articles and weblogs suggested there is good news on the sea level issue, with future sea level rise expected to be a lot less compared to the previous IPCC report (the Third Assessment Report, TAR). Some articles reported that IPCC had reduced its sea level projection from 88 cm to 59 cm (35 inches to 23 inches)  some even said it was reduced from 88 cm to 43 cm (17 inches), and there were several other versions as well (see “Broad Irony”). 

These statements are not correct and the new range up to 59 cm is not the full story. Here I will try to clarify what IPCC actually said and how these numbers were derived.
What does IPCC say?
What is included in these sea level numbers?
How do the new numbers compare to the previous report?"
~~~
Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections, Find Sea Level Rise Underestimated
http://skepticalscience.com/rahmstorf-foster-cazenave-2012.html
~~~
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
11.9.4 Sea Level Rise
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-9-4.html 

~~~
6.3.2 Climate and sea-level scenarios
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-3-2.html

~~~

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

greenman3610

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffsux-ifKk

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

24:40 "It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming - as disappointing as this conclusion may be."

~ ~ ~

Lindzen has great fun with this quote and gets a good laugh from his audience. 

But, think about his claim - because scientists still don't have a large enough database (though it keeps growing every year) Lindzen implies we should laugh off concerns about rising sea levels.

Thing is, we don't need to know the trend with absolute precision, to know we got a dangerous situation on our hands.

Where is the critical thinking in knowing that sea levels are rising faster than projected, though the error bars are greater than we'd wish - as an excuse for continuing to ignore the situation?

Lindzen's game is setting up impossible expectations in a most cynical manner.

Then, he preaches his manipulated message to an unskeptical audience who wants to hear his message of "no worries".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

25:05  "you know Carl is very much a supporter of Obama"

~ ~ ~

More conspiracy ideation - keep in mind that, so far, Lindzen has made lots of claims but provided no evidence and precious little science. 

These are pure political/ideological opinions that have nothing to do with understanding the science behind our global heat distribution engine.

~~~

RECURSIVE FURY: THE INVOLVEMENT OF CONSPIRACIST IDEATION IN REJECTION OF SCIENCE 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/recursive-fury-the-involvement-of-conspiracist-ideation-in-rejection-of-science/

~~~

So we don't let Lindzen make us lose track of what the important issue is:

27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models 

or the IPCC

potholer54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

sources used to make the above video:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

25:15   "We see this throughout the literature people tried to keep their science straight but don't wish to drop the issue."

~ ~ ~ 

Once again no specific examples or evidence offered.

Innuendo and slander are so easy, all it takes is cheap words...

but coming up with actual evidence is much more difficult,

though that's what should matter... 

So far Lindzen hasn't offered any evidence since is audience seems happy to accept his "authority" as the expert on everything.  But, why?

Why doesn't his audience have any expectation of being given the real facts?  Why is the CEI crowd happy to accept transparent misrepresentation and blatant misdirection?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

25:45  "Actual sea level varies both up and down irregularly and, frequently, by far larger amounts than does mean sea level.  Moreover, at many coastal regions, locally measured sea level (using tide gauges) varies mostly due to changes in land level."

~ ~ ~

Now we are on to sea level issues.

To keep it simple, Lindzen talks as if geophysicists aren't fully aware of a kaleidoscope issues revolving around the shimmy of global sea levels.

Here is some of the science that Lindzen hides from his audience:

In Search of Lost Time: Ancient Eclipses, Roman Fish Tanks and 

the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rise

Professor Jerry X. Mitrovica, Ph.D.

DistinctiveVoicesBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdfTUdU9x-k

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/05/prof-mitrovicas-enigma-of-global-sea.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

26:25  "...i mean there have been some suggestions but they they don't know amount to anything..."26:30 "... and moreover tipping points even in systems where they exist are never characterized by systems where you have diminishing returns..."
26:45  "... CO2 the impact of every atom is less than it's predecessor..." 

~ ~ ~

Lindzen's claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny - read:

A Saturated Gassy Argument

guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

26:55 "... what we see here again is the tendency for any claims to be made once the basis for the claim need only be authority.  There's an interesting twist to this, that is to say, once people regard authority as a sufficient argument, you are free to make any claim you wish..."

~ ~ ~

The irony is too rich.  So far the only "proofs" Lindzen has offers are those based on his own aura of authority on everything.

CO2's radiative properties are not accepted on faith, they have been well studied and many have tried to convey that information to laypeople, for instance this series:

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/ 

~~~ 

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

27:--  {and so on and so forth}

~ ~ ~

Lindzen still doesn't offer an objective review of what climatologists do understand - he ignores all that - in favor of sowing emotional/political based suspicion and distrust.

Still, barely a minute spend actually discussing the science - what is being observed, what's been discovered, what misperception have been corrected and refined and such. 

It's just one ideological driven pep rally for his side of the story.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

continued