Cooler Heads Lindzen Talk PDF

7/30/2019 Cooler Heads Lindzen Talk PDF

1/49

DeconstructingGlobal Warming

Richard S. Lindzen

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

CEI

October 26, 2009

A pdf of these slides is available on request from [email protected]


2/49


3/49

3

From the 1970s, there was a general feeling that

climate change would be an excellent vehicle for a

variety of agendas. People openly espousing thisincluded Bert Bolin, who was an adviser to the Swedish

prime minister, and later the first head of the IPCC.

Once the global issue emerged on the public scene,two cooperating institutions were formed in the 1990s

with interlocking leadership: The Tyndall Centre for

Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, andthe Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

The latter is headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

and the former by Michael Hulme. These institutions

epitomize the exploitation of the climate issue. Their

members constitute numerous participants in the

IPCC.

Recently, Hulme came out with an interesting book.


4/49

4

The idea of climate change should be seen

as an intellectual resource around which our

collective and personal identities and projects

can form and take shape. We need to ask not

what we can do for climate change, but to ask

what climate change can do for us.

Because the idea of climate change is so

plastic, it can be deployed across many of our

human projects and can serve many of ourpsychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.

.

We will continue to create and tell new stories

about climate change and mobilize them in

support of our projects.

.

These myths transcend the scientificcategories of true' and false'" .

Here are some revealing quotes:Note that Hulme readily

acknowledges that the

science is uncertain, but he

concludes that this doesntmatter given the importance

of possible impacts and

the uses to which the issue

may be put.


5/49

5

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,

As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tideBy a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

What I tell you three times is true."

From Lewis Carrolls Hunting of the Snark.

As always in propaganda, repetition is an important tool. This was early

recognized by Lewis Carrol (as well as by Josef Goebbels).


6/49


7/49

7

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell addressto the nation in 1961, gave a warning that public policy

could itself become the captive of a scientific-

technological elite. He went on

Partly because of the huge costs involved, a

government contract becomes virtually a substitute

for intellectual curiosityThe prospect of dominationof the nations scholars by Federal employment,

project allocations, and the power of money is ever

present - and is gravely to be regarded.

The cooptation of science turns out to be an easy matter that I have

described in detail in a recent publication (Climate Science is it designed

to answer questions?) The vulnerability of science was certainly well

understood by President Eisenhower. His fears for the future were by nomeans restricted to the military-industrial complex, and have proven even

more prescient with time.


8/49

8

After the uprising of the 17th June

The Secretary of the Writers Union

Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee

Stating that the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could win it back only

By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier

In that case for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another?

--Bertold Brecht, 1953

The Foreign Secretary accused the public yesterday of lacking a sense of urgency

in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change. David

Miliband said that people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to

be galvanized into action before the Copenhagen climate change summit in

December.--Hannah Devlin, The Times, 23 October 2009

Courtesy of Benny Peiser


9/49


10/49


11/49


12/49

12Pink fuzz represents stated uncertainty.


13/49


14/49


15/49


16/49

16


17/49


18/49

18


19/49


20/49


21/49

21


22/49


23/49


24/49


25/49


26/49


27/49

27


28/49


29/49

29

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 9 0 0 19 1 0 1 9 20 1 93 0 1 9 4 0 1 9 50 1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0 1 9 80 1 9 90 2 0 0 0 20 1 0

Year

Percentageofcountry

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0 .5

1

1 .5

190 0 19 10 1 92 0 19 30 1 940 1 95 0 1 9 60 1 970 198 0 19 90 2 000 201 0

Year

Temperaturea

nomaly(C)

Percentage of the U.S. Experiencing Drought Conditions

Northern Hemisphere Temperature

We see noevidence of

any

correlation.


30/49

30

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

1 8 0

1 9 0 0 1 9 1 0 1 9 2 0 19 3 0 1 9 4 0 19 5 0 1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0 19 8 0 1 9 9 0 20 0 0 2 0 1 0

Year

Yiel

d(bushelsperacr

e)

Wheat

Corn

U.S. Crop Yields INCREASING with warmingCorn (filled circles) and Wheat (open circles)

Here, there would appear to be correlation, but there are many other

reasons why crop yields happen to be increasing.


31/49

31

When it comes to unusual climate (which always occurs

some place), most claims of evidence for global warming

are guilty of the prosecutors fallacy. For example this

confuses the near certainty of the fact that if A shoots B,

there will be evidence of gunpowder on As hand with the

assertion that if C has evidence of gunpowder on hishands then C shot B.

However, with global warming the line of argument is even

sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked

up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into

which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped

into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell andbroke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed

that A had kicked up some dirt.


32/49


33/49


34/49

34

Equally ironic, the fact that the global meantemperature anomaly ceased increasing by the

mid nineties is acknowledged by modeling

groups as contradicting the main underlying

assumption of the so-called attribution

argument (Smith et al, 2007, Keenlyside et al,2008, Lateef, 2009). Yet the iconic statement

continues to be repeated as authoritative

gospel, and as implying catastrophe.


35/49

35

Now, all projections of dangerous impacts hinge on

climate sensitivity. (To be sure, the projections ofcatastrophe also depend on many factors besides

warming itself.) Embarrassingly, the estimates of

the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 havebasically remained unchanged since 1979.

They are that models project a sensitivity of from1.5-5C. Is simply running models the way to

determine this? Why hasnt the uncertainly

diminished?

There follows a much more rigorous determination

using physics and satellite data.


36/49

36

We have a 16-year (19851999) record of the earth radiation

budget from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE;

Barkstrom 1984) nonscanner edition 3 dataset. This is the onlystable long-term climate dataset based on broadband flux

measurements and was recently altitude-corrected (Wong et al.

2006). Since 1999, the ERBE instrument has been replaced bythe better CERES instrument. From the ERBE/CERES monthly

data, we calculated anomalies of LW-emitted, SW-reflected, and

the total outgoing fluxes.

We also have a record of sea surface temperature for the same

period from the National Center for Environmental Prediction.

Finally, we have the IPCC model calculated radiation budget formodels forced by observed sea surface temperature from the

Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Program at the Lawrence

Livermore Laboratory of the DOE.


37/49

37

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-0.3

0.0

0.3

0.6

SST

Anoma

ly(K)

This is the sea surface temperature (SST) record.

Red indicates warming incident, while Blue indicatescooling incident.


38/49

38

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

LW

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005-8

0

8

SW

Anomaly(W

m

)-2

ERBE/ERBS NS CERES/Terra

The red curves are the anomalies of satellite OLR relative to the average

for the period 1985-89. The blue curves show reflected sunlight.

8

CCSM38

UKMO HadGEM1


39/49

39

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4

8

CCSM3

ECHAM5/MIP-OM FGOALS-g1.0

GFDL-CM2.1 GISS-ER

INM-CM3.0 IPSL-CM4

MRI-CGCM2.3.2 MIROC3.2(hires)

MIROC3.2(medres)

OLR

anomaly(Wm

)-2

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-4

0

4UKMO-HadGEM1

The red

curves are the

anomalies of

satellite OLRrelative to the

average for

the period

1985-89. Theblack curves

are the OLRs

obtained from

IPCC models

forced by the

observed

SST.

88CCSM3UKMO-HadGEM1 The blue


40/49

40

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

8

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

-8

0

ECHAM5/MIP-OM FGOALS-g1.0

GFDL-CM2.1 GISS-ER

INM-CM3.0 IPSL-CM4

MRI-CGCM2.3.2 MIROC3.2(hires)

MIROC3.2(medres)

SWRanomaly(Wm

)-2

curves are

the

anomalies

of satelliteSW

radiation

relative to

the averagefor the

period

1985-89.

The black

curves are

the SWRs

obtained

from IPCC

modelsforced by

the

observed

SST.


41/49

41

Q

Q

Q

T0

T

G0

G0

a. No Feedback Case

b. Feedback Case

FF T

T =G Q0 0

T=G ( Q+F T)0


42/49

42

Q

Q

Q

T0

T

G0

G0

a. No Feedback Case

b. Feedback Case

F

F T

T =G Q0 0

T=G ( Q+F T)0


43/49

43

,00 QGT =

0 ( ),T G Q F T = +

,1

0

f

TT

=

where f = G0F is the feedback factor. The net feedback is positive for

0 < f < 1, and negative for f < 0. The feedback parameter F is

Flux/T, assuming the same incoming radiation in the system.The negative sign is because increased outgoing flux means energy

loss. For example, with T = 0.2 K and Flux = 0.9 W m2, F is 4.5

W m2 K (= 0.9/0.2).

The idea now is to take fluxes observed by


44/49

44

The idea now is to take fluxes observed by

satellite and produced by models forced by

observed sea surface temperatures, and seehow these fluxes change with fluctuations in

sea surface temperature. This allows us to

evaluate the feedback factor.

Remember, we are ultimately talking about the

greenhouse effect. It is generally agreed thatdoubling CO2 alone will cause about 1C warming

due to the fact that it acts as a blanket. Model

projections of greater warming absolutelydepend on positive feedbacks from water

vapor and clouds that will add to the blanket

reducing the net cooling of the climatesystem.

CCSM36

ECHAM5/MIP-OM6

FGOALS-g1.06

UKMO-HadGEM16

N 14 N 14 N 13 N 13


45/49

45

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

GFDL-CM2.1

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

6GISS-ER

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

6INM-CM3.0

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

6IPSL-CM4

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

6

MRI-CGCM2.3.2

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

SST (K)

-6

-3

0

3

6

Flux(Wm-2)

MIROC3.2(hires)

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

SST (K)

-6

-3

0

3

6MIROC3.2(medres)

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

SST (K)

-6

-3

0

3

6

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

Flux(Wm-2)

F

lux(Wm-2)

SST (K) SST (K) SST (K) SST (K)

SST (K) SST (K) SST (K) SST (K)

N = 14 N = 14 N = 13 N = 13

N = 13 N = 19 N = 21 N = 19

N = 19 N = 19 N = 19

The fact that all models

show a negative slopecorresponding to a

positive feedback, has led

virtually all scientific

bodies including the IPCC

to declare this property tobe robust. But, what

does the data show?


46/49

46

ERBE & CERES

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-6

-3

0

3

6

Flux(Wm-2)

SST (K)

N = 26


47/49

47

Once one has the feedback factor, it is easy to relate

this factor to climate sensitivity via the equation

,1

0

f

TT

=


48/49

48

We see that for models, the uncertainty in radiative fluxes makes it impossible to

pin down the precise sensitivity because they are so close to unstable

regeneration. This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where

the sensitivity is about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2. From the brief SST record, wesee that fluctuations of that magnitude occur all the time.

LW+SW

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (K)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Flux/SST

(Wm-2K-1)

-10

-5

0

5

10

Feedback

factor(f)

-2

-1

0

1

2

CCSM3

ECHAM5/MIP-OM

FGOALS-g1.0

GFDL-CM2.1GISS-ER

INM-CM3.0

IPSL-CM4

MRI-CGCM2.3.2

MIROC3.2(hires)MIROC3.2(medres)

UKMO-HadGEM1

ERBE-CERES

Models


49/49

49

What we see is that the very foundation of

the issue of global warming is wrong.

So where do we go from here?

It is hard to tell, given that to note thisconstitutes an insult to the sensibilities of

the educated class and the entire East and

West Coasts.

Documents

Cooler Heads Lindzen Talk PDF