Posted on 02/16/2011 11:49:35 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
fyi
Slide 1 copy from PDF
Global Warming:
How to approach the science.
(Climate Models and the Evidence?)
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Testimony: House Subcommittee
on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational
Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the
Evidence, the Response
November 17, 2010
A pdf of these slides is available on request to rlindzen@mit.edu
1
I wish to thank the House Committee on Science and Tech
Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov't wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide...The new religion of Anti-Carbon doesn't even rise to the level of Fake-But-Accurate.
It's just Fake.
Slide 2
************************************************************
I wish to thank the House Committee on Science and Technology for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change – or as it was once referred to: global warming.
The written testimony is, of course, far more detailed than my oral summary will be.
In the summary, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about.
It most certainly is not about whether climate is
changing: it always is.
It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will
lead to some warming: it should.
The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes.
The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.
The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such.
Slide 3
*******************************************************
In my long experience with the issue of global
warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of
laymen — including policymakers – do not actually
know what the scientific debate is about.
In this testimony, I will try to clarify this.
Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not
about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing
some portion of whatever is happening.
I’ll explain this in this testimony.
Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members
of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated
any other role they may be playing.
Slide 4
*************************************************************
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC.
It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming.
All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks
from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be
uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing,
then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C.
The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming
by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability
as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive
to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
BTT
I wonder how much CO2 this windbag expelled during his 48 pages of testimony?
I got as far as slide 30 and will read the rest later...
Lundzen is no windbag, nor should he be labled as such!! He is one of the most credible climate Physcists in the world, and furthermore, he is solidly on the side that CO2 will not create significant global warming in and of itself.
Th eidea is preposterous. And frankly stupid given the evidence that the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect is in fact a system with an Equilibrium, and one that is self correcting. Mankind and all our emmissions cannot effect that equilibrium. EVER.
Lindzen is on our side, and we would do well not to insult him, he is facing a monumnetal challenge just to keep his funding for going AGAINST what the govermnet, the EPA and Obama wants.
He deserves our respect. He has earned it.
Much of Lindzen's opinion is an outlier in the climate science community, but he has made serious proposals for further investigation (Can water vapour feedbacks can be directly observed? Is ocean heat content tracking the models?) that have been the impetus for studies by others - though the results have generally not been supportive of his views.
_______________
One thing that Lindzen does demonstrate: if you are a public "skeptic" which actual credentials relevant to your concerns, and you can raise scientifically plausible questions about current models, people on "the other side" in the climate science debate will attempt to address them.
IMO a demonstration people convinced that there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress such opinion ought to keep in mind - the reason you don't see more such studies is that there aren't many such questions being raised.
GREAT post. Love this guys sense of humor, too!!!
ping
No, the reason you do not see many such studies is because the government wont fund them. Hard to believe that we are only just now starting to analyze the changes in non-visible light during the solar cycle. We have been around for a few thousand years and are just now starting to wonder about non-visible light from the sun ? An amazing stupid species we are.
I don't even believe that is true. The well established science of physics casts extreme doubt on that conclusion.
It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.
I don’t even believe that is true. The well established science of physics casts extreme doubt on that conclusion.
Effective presenters establish the 'point' early on. What I see is a convoluted journey of explanation that, frankly, boors the audience - especially a simpleton audience like a government panel.
The old trick of "Tell them what you're gonna tell them", "Tell them", and then "Tell them what you told them" always works. Again, I don't criticize the content of what I saw (yet)....it's just damned cumbersome to get to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
