MIT's inconvenient scientist [He doubts global warming propaganda]

The Boston Globe ^ | August 30, 2006 | By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist

[aculeus]

... I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.

Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

[snip]

Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.

``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

[Oberon]

...as anyone who has looked at paleoclimatology can tell you, the Earth has ranged from ice nearly to the equator to no ice caps at all (the norm, actually) and the planet managed to survive and bounce back.

I have always found it odd that the earth is mostly too cool for the life that inhabits it. Yes, plants and animals exist that have adaptations for every climatic condition available on earth, but I'm talking about a larger view.

As you consider different climates, you'll note that as the average temperature increases, the biodiversity, the number of individual organisms, and the total biomass all go up. A desert is not an exception to this rule; in a desert the limiting factor is not temperature, but water. In fact, there is no place on earth where, given sufficent water, the number, diversity, and sheer mass of plants and animals is limited by a too-hot climate.

Would this not seem to indicate that life on earth either evolved or was made (not getting into that argument) for a warmer earth than we have now?

[RexBeach]

Thanks for the link. I'll read it sometime today.

[RexBeach]

It's also impossible to know what the stock market will do over the next several days; but it does not follow that the market will be higher in 10 or 20 years from now.

[djl_sa]

Okay... that was funny. Bring on the pirates!

[Gorjus]

TChris, that's still essentially a weather prediction, not a climate prediction. Take a look at the link I posted in #27. Given a liberal margin-of-error, I could easily predict the average temperature for any state one month in advance; I just look at what the average temperature IS for that state and that month. (That, in essence, is climate. Climate = average weather.)

First off, I agree that weather and climate are different, but the article (which I did read) misses the point about global warming.

Yes, repeatable trends, like the difference in temperatures between winter and summer, are predictable at least as an average. But the global warming advocates are 'predicting' a change to the previously repeatable situation.

And yes, one can 'predict' based on an assessment of the trends, but that does not make the predictions accurate.

Here are two issues that need to be addressed:

1) What is the uncertainty associated with the prediction? How does that uncertainty compare to the effect being predicted? If our scientifically justifiable accuracy is no better than the effect being predicted (+/- 5 degrees of uncertainty on a prediction of +3 degrees) then we hardly have a basis for embarking on policies that guarantee near-term economic disruption.

2) What is the demonstrated validity of the models used to make the prediction? Even if we have analyzed our uncertainty and feel there is a real trend, we still may not be making accurate predictions. There is a simple test for this, and all current global-warming predictions fail. Apply the model to the conditions of 1900, and predict the conditions of 2000, using the sampled proxy evidence and assumptions for the future that the models employ. Not a single one of them correctly predicts the year 2000. An example of this is that a few years ago the same sorts of models (less sophisticated in a computer complexity sense, but still based on the same underlying assumptions) predicted an ice age by now.

Bottom line: Using a demonstrably repetitive cycle, like the winter-summer temperature variation, to justify an open-loop extrapolation of a change to that very cycle is hardly convincing. It does show that there is a difference between climate and weather, but it tells us little about whether climatologists have any basis for alarm over global warming.

[GladesGuru]

Note to the Goron and Libroids in general:

The METS climate model, one of the world's most advanced climate model programs, came up with the following:

In the summer, Ireland and the Central Sahara have about the same rainfall.

Schneider is wrong. Linzden rightly warns of the inadequacies of the models, the modellers who made them, and the presstitutes who use them to push their agenda.

[MainFrame65]

" == With thousands of slave ships no longer throwing 200 million of slaves overboard, the ecology of the ocean was altered. == "

Ahh, but the millions of sharks that still constantly patrol the slave ship routes looking for a free meal have certainly changed the ocean currents! (/sarc)

[UNGN]

Ahh, but the millions of sharks that still constantly patrol the slave ship routes looking for a free meal have certainly changed the ocean currents! (/sarc)

That is what is known to climate scientists as a "double whammy"

[cogitator]

There is a simple test for this, and all current global-warming predictions fail. Apply the model to the conditions of 1900, and predict the conditions of 2000, using the sampled proxy evidence and assumptions for the future that the models employ. Not a single one of them correctly predicts the year 2000.

I would be interested in your comments on this:

Junkscience is... junk (please ignore the provocative title)

The article links to this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127

[Gorjus]

Interesting data, and it addresses one but not both of the points.

Taking the scatter in the various models as a measure of their collective accuracy (an assumption, not a fact, but a place to start), you can see that the consistency among the models leads to an estimate of about half a degree in uncertainty. The actual data show a man-made impact slightly outside that range, which is at least some support for the significance of man-made effects. However, consistency among the models is no guarantee that any of them are accurate.

In addition, that doesn't really address the second point, which I couldn't extract from the data. Were any of those simulations set up at a single point in time, based on conditions observed at that point and extrapolations from that data using assumptions similar to those being used today, then allowed to run for a century?

I get the impression that the methodology was the opposite. On a much shorter timeline - like year by year - it looks like they took a look at all observed data and fed it into the model to get an impact assessment for the various observatios for that year. Thus impacts like Mt. Pinatubo are explained. Of course, a prediction started in 1900 would not (likely) have predicted a Mt. Pinatubo event.

This is better than nothing at attempting to validate the models. It shows (or doesn't, as applicable) that the temperature variations follow observed variations in key predictive variables such as solar and volcanic activity. If we knew now what those variations would be from now until 2100, we'd have some confidence that the models could provide a correlation between that future volcanic activity and future temperature, for example.

But we don't know how those factors will vary in the future.

I'm all for research, if it's honest, scientific inquiry without agenda. But the burden of proof should be squarely on those who advocate massive economic harm to the US particularly and without corresponding impact to our competitors (i.e. Kyoto Protocol), or who advocate massive centralization of power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats (i.e. Kyoto Protocol). These data do not provide that proof.

One interesting note: A single volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) is reported to have had twice the effect of all man-made warming combined for that corresponding year. Perhaps the solution to global warming is to detonate a few nuclear devices in not-quite-active volcanos. One or two of those a year and the man-made effects are more than cancelled out. That 'solution' is offered at least partially in jest (the science might work, but I know the politics would not) but the key issue is that we haven't really considered how to address the issue in a positive way. The 'limits to growth' philosophy just rolls over and dies, accepting that for all future generations, the standard of living will be less then ours. We should be looking at data like this for solutions that increase the overall wealth of society, not eliminate it.

I'd like to see, for example, an analysis of what hydrogen as a fuel, or nuclear power does to these data. Both can reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere, but they increase water vapor (which is a worse greenhouse gas) though not on a pound-for-pound basis. Are those good or bad ideas for power, as a net effect? That's a matter for data, not the opinion of mankind-is-bad-and-manmade-carbon-will-kill-us-all zealots.

Interesting article, and thanks for pointing it out. When I get home this evening, I'll post you another note with a link to a paper identifying some compensatory atmospheric effects that tend to reduce global warming (and may have been the reason the predicted ice age didn't show up). Compensatory factors may be buried in the simulations reference in your article, but I couldn't see any explicit recognition of them.

[cogitator]

Were any of those simulations set up at a single point in time, based on conditions observed at that point and extrapolations from that data using assumptions similar to those being used today, then allowed to run for a century? ... I get the impression that the methodology was the opposite. On a much shorter timeline - like year by year - it looks like they took a look at all observed data and fed it into the model to get an impact assessment for the various observatios for that year. Thus impacts like Mt. Pinatubo are explained. Of course, a prediction started in 1900 would not (likely) have predicted a Mt. Pinatubo event.

I'm not sure. Clearly in order to reproduce the effect of the forcings, the forcings have to be accounted for. That's probably why they compare runs with "natural" forcings only to forcings with both natural and anthropogenic forcing.

If we knew now what those variations would be from now until 2100, we'd have some confidence that the models could provide a correlation between that future volcanic activity and future temperature, for example. ... But we don't know how those factors will vary in the future.

Solar is another question, but despite not knowing when a volcano will erupt, it could be stated with some confidence that the next century will probably have 1-3 large explosions in the Krakatoa-Pinatubo range, and that the effects of those explosions will persist 4-5 years, with most of the effect occurring in the first two years after the eruption.

But the burden of proof should be squarely on those who advocate massive economic harm to the US particularly and without corresponding impact to our competitors (i.e. Kyoto Protocol), or who advocate massive centralization of power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats (i.e. Kyoto Protocol). These data do not provide that proof.

Because my position on climate change is that it can be addressed by steps that are increasingly necessary to alter the nation's dependence on foreign oil imports (for economic and national security reasons), I'm interested in the science of climate change, and I think that the Kyoto Protocol is a useless side issue. I don't think it will ever substantially influence U.S. domestic or foreign policy -- but energy policy is very important.

One interesting note: A single volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) is reported to have had twice the effect of all man-made warming combined for that corresponding year. Perhaps the solution to global warming is to detonate a few nuclear devices in not-quite-active volcanos.

Perhaps a bit drastic, and hard to control. There was recently a suggestion by a noted scientist that if global warming must be addressed, controlled stratospheric release of sulfate aerosols could be contemplated.

I'd like to see, for example, an analysis of what hydrogen as a fuel, or nuclear power does to these data. Both can reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere, but they increase water vapor (which is a worse greenhouse gas) though not on a pound-for-pound basis.

The water vapor content of the atmosphere (relative humidity) is a feedback of the climate system determined by Earth's radiative balance. Since the evaporative term from the ocean's overwhelms any anthropogenic contribution.

Thanks for the reasoned comments.

[pepperdog]

There goes Lindzen's research funding!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Actually, Lindzen doesn't get this criticism (other skeptics do).

I've referenced him on reddit.com, and invariably got the response that he was bought and paid for by the oil industry because he took a few pennies from them one time.

Mindless people believe in boogeymen - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Halliburton, Wal-Mart, etc., etc., etc.

[Gorjus]

but energy policy is very important.

Absolutely. A rational energy policy would accept as a given that we need more energy every year. Else is the nightmare slide into eternal barbarism. But where does the energy come from?

That needs to consider the nature of the energy storage and transport. If right now we had a totally hydrogen-fueled transport system and someone came up with a fuel with 5 times the energy density, that was further a liquid at room temperature and pressure so storage was easy, we'd jump all over it. Cars need gasoline. On the other hand, using fuel oil for home heating or powerplants (except as a way to employ what is left over after a barrel of raw crude has produced all the gasoline it can) is just wrong.

Powerplants, unless there is a handy high-head-pressure hydro source (i.e. Hoover dam) should be nuclear. It's the safest, least polluting power source known to man, but it takes a large, permanent, immobile installation. Right now, all the 'renewable energy sources' other than water power are not cost effective. This is disguised by massive government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies for things like wind power, but an honest look at the numbers shows they don't really work (except, again, in certain limited locations with a particular geographic advantage like very steady winds).

Natural gas is a 'natural' for distributed heating, since burning gas produces very stable heat when burned in atmospheric conditions (compensating for minor variations in feed rate as things wear - something that gasoline will not tolerate). That's not terribly volume efficient, and external combustion is not terribly safe for mobile installations (such as cars). But it works great for homes. Electrical heating of homes (except as a very occasional thing as in Southern California or Hawaii) is just too inefficient for a rational energy policy.

If we focused our energy policy on considerations like that, we would both increase our efficiency (through things like gas heating instead of electric heating for homes) and increase our available energy sources (through use of nuclear power for electricity generation, freeing up fuel oil for mobile users like cars and trucks). Special case users, like large volume trucks and transport aircraft might take advantage of hydrogen with an acceptable penalty.

However, once we get as efficient as practical - while still providing a decent standard of living - we need to identify and exploit sources of the various types of energy-producer. That means drilling for oil in ANWR, etc.

Notice how many of those options that start from an acceptance that we need a continuing supply of energy are the opposite of what would be accepted by those who most complain about no energy policy? All they want is to restrict usage, and I am personally convinced it's so they can control our lives. If, for example, the only way to get around is on public transport, then whoever controls that transport controls a major part of our lives. If, for example, we all have to live in high-density housing (so that commutes are shorter) then we wouldn't be able to 'vote with our feet' to move from suburb to suburb and thus big-city bureaucrats (a natural government constituency) control more of our lives.

Thus, while the Kyoto protocol itself may die a well-deserved death, the basic socialist attitude of using energy/pollution controls as a way to control and limit free choice is the wave of the future. It needs to be combatted in every way that we can.

[Always Right]

Wow, there is still an honest scientist out there. Incredible, saying what anyone with a brain following this non-debate already knows. Poor guy will get viciously attacked for stating the obvious.

[Always Right]

It's a different kind of prediction.

But we know more about predicting the weather than we do about predicting climate change. There are more variables, more unknowns, more assumptions in the climate models. Yet that is the major foundation of climate change 'science'. What Alfred P. Sloan state was all true.

[Always Right]

For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

Unbelievable. The global warming NAZIs will stop at nothing to advance their radical left-wing agenda.

[cogitator]

But we know more about predicting the weather than we do about predicting climate change.

I agree. Weather prediction is based on fluid dynamics models. The accuracy of weather prediction is based on the computational power running the model and the spatial and temporal resolution of inputs to the model.

There are more variables, more unknowns, more assumptions in the climate models.

Which necessarily follows because the factors that influence climate are more varied than the factors that influence weather.

[justa-hairyape]

but casinos make billion of dollars knowing what the long term results will be.

Only because they blacklist the Black Jack card counters.

See the connection to Global Warming ?

[pleikumud]

Academia is like a police state, where there is "correct" thought and "incorrect" thought. Same idea as "correct thought" under totalitarian dictatorships: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the Kims.
The academics are so intellectually weak they fail to understand that they are trapped inside a mental jail where no dissent is permitted. And those who have figured it out dare not challenge the status quo, if they plan to "succeed" in academia. Instead they have religions with names such as "diversity", "affirmative action", "global warming", "class warfare", and "stop the war".
And these fools are "teaching" our kids!