Articles Tagged "Richard Lindzen"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Sunday, March 31st 2013, 7:31 PM EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity [2005-2006] was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Saturday, March 9th 2013, 6:15 AM EST
The Lindzen debate at the Oxford Union was, I think, a rather significant moment in the climate debate. One in which sceptic views got a fair hearing in an open debate. Lindzen was to be accompanied by a panel of invited experts consisting of David Rose, Mark Lynas and Myles Allen. Part 1 was an interview of Lindzen with interjections from the panel, while part 2 opened up the debate to the floor.
A few of us sceptics - Josh, Tallbloke, David Holland and others had met up beforehand and I think it's fair to say that we all expected little from the evening. Mehdi Hasan, the left-wing journalist who was to compere the event had been using the d-word a couple of evenings ago and had said he wasn't a neutral. This didn't bode well. In the event he ran through the gamut of "questions you ask sceptics" - denialism, big oil funding and do on - and in a way that was quite aggressive (but not unfairly so), but I think it fair to say that didn't go the way he expected. I should add that Hasan's handling of the Q&A was exemplary.
Lindzen's laid-back style does not make for good TV and I think Hasan and the TV people might have wished for a more flamboyant figure. However, it does lend him an air of authority and many of the barbs from the chair seemed to simply bounce off Lindzen's avuncular force-field.
The debate was very wide-ranging, covering everything from peer review to climate sensitivity to Milankovitch cycles to policy matters and US libel laws. Lindzen certainly knows his stuff and there was nothing that threw him and only a couple of moments when his quiet calm seemed disturbed.
Wednesday, March 6th 2013, 2:58 AM EST
FRIDAY 8TH MARCH at 7.30pm - PROF RICHARD LINDZEN
Head to Head Debates with Mehdi Hasan - FRIDAY 8TH MARCH at 7.30pm - PROF RICHARD LINDZEN
Message: Al Jazeera English is launching a new discussion series called Head to Head, presented by Mehdi Hasan. Head to Head tackles the big issues of our times, from foreign intervention to faith and American supremacy.
This week’s recording tackles the thorny issue of climate change as Mehdi Hasan challenges one of the world’s leading climate sceptics, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen and asks, Is Climate Change Fact… or Fiction?
The event will be filmed in front of a live audience at the Oxford Union with questions from the audience.
We’d be delighted if you, or indeed any of your friends and colleagues would like to attend the recording, and take part in the discussion. I’m conscious you may not be based in the UK, but I’m sure many of your readers are. I’d love it if you could either publicise the event on your blog or perhaps tweet about the event if you use twitter. If you tweet about it, please use our email address for tickets: firstname.lastname@example.org
The event will be televised globally on Al-Jazeera English later in the year. Al Jazeera English has an audience of 280 million households around the world and we’ll soon be broadcasting to 60 million new households in the US.
Tuesday, January 15th 2013, 12:46 PM EST
A paper under review for Earth System Dynamics uses a novel technique based on satellite data and surface air temperatures to find that global warming due to increased CO2 is is much less than claimed by the IPCC. According to the author, the findings confirm those of Spencer & Braswell and Lindzen & Choi that a doubling of CO2 levels would only lead to an increase in top of the atmosphere temperature of 0.67°C, or global surface temperature of about 0.18°C, instead of the alleged 3°C claimed by IPCC computer models.
The observations indicate a climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1, which is in very close agreement to that found by Spencer and Braswell (2010) of 6 Wm−2 K−1, as well as that found by Lindzen and Choi (2011). A climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1 corresponds to global warming at the surface of only [1 Wm-2]/[5.5 Wm−2 K−1] = 0.18 °C per doubling of CO2 levels [or 3.7/5.5 = 0.67°C at the top of the atmosphere], far less than the 3°C global warming claimed by the IPCC.
From the paper:
"An unusually high value of the climate feedback parameter of 6 Wm−2 K−1 is suggested by the phase plane plots in Spencer and Braswell (2010). This corresponds to a very low climate sensitivity that disagrees with the majority of the other estimations of the climate sensitivity (Knutti and Hegerl, 2008; Randall et al., 2007; Huber et al., 2011). A discussion of the various methods for estimation of the climate sensitivity is beyond the scope of this work. Here we discuss a method for estimating the value of the climate feedback parameter from satellite radiative ﬂux data and leave the question how to relate the result from this method to the equilibrium climate sensitivity to future work."
Monday, January 7th 2013, 5:47 AM EST
Summary: We’ve looked at plenty of false (or at least temporarily not proven) forecasts by American experts about wars and climate. The rule seems to be that political correctness is rewarded, irrespective of accuracy. Today we see the opposite, accurate forecasts by an eminent scientists — for which he’s ridiculed. It’s no way to run a superpower, except on the rocks. We can do better.
1.Contempt for science
2.Speech by Richard Lindzen
3.Other articles by Prof Lindzen
4.Other Climate Forecasts
5.For More Information
(1) Contempt for science
One of the great oddities of the debate about climate science is the contempt for scientists displayed by the lay cheerleaders on both sides. Scientists are authorities, unless they disagree with the true dogma — then they’re fools and charlatans. Previous posts looked at forecasts that have proved false, or not correct so far.
Today we look at a speech made 23 years ago by a MIT professor. It looks good today, still accurate despite the advances in climate science. Furthermore his forecast of no warming larger than natural variability during the next century has proven accurate so far — after 23 years have elapsed.
Wednesday, August 15th 2012, 7:17 AM EDT
In his Aug. 6 op-ed, "A New Climate-Change Consensus," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp speaks of "the trend—a decades-long march toward hotter and wilder weather." We have seen quite a few such claims this summer season, and Mr. Krupp insists that we accept them as "true." Only with Lewis Carroll's famous definition of truth, "What I tell you three times is true," is this the case.
But repetition of a fib does not make it true. As one of many pieces of evidence that our climate is doing what it always does, consider the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's year-by-year data for wet and dry years in the continental U.S.
From 1900 to the present, there are only irregular, chaotic variations from year to year, but no change in the trend or in the frequency of dry years or wet years. Sometimes there are clusters of dry years, the most significant being the dry Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. These tend to be followed by clusters of wet years.
Despite shrill claims of new record highs, when we look at record highs for temperature measurement stations that have existed long enough to have a meaningful history, there is no trend in the number of extreme high temperatures, neither regionally nor continentally. We do see the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s setting the largest number of record highs, at a time when it is acknowledged that humans had negligible effect on climate.
Thursday, July 26th 2012, 5:36 AM EDT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims. “Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said.
“Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change. In an effort to shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate, Sandia National Laboratories has invited experts from a wide variety of perspectives to present their views in the Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.
Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
Source Link: phys.org/news
Thursday, June 7th 2012, 5:01 AM EDT
The Earth is reaching a "tipping point" in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction of the global environment unless its forces are controlled by concerted international action, an international group of scientists warns.
Unchecked population growth, the disappearance of critical plant and animal species, the over-exploitation of energy resources, and the rapidly warming climate are all combining to bring mounting pressure on the Earth's environmental health, they say.
Scientists from five nations, led by UC Berkeley biologist Anthony Barnosky, report their analysis Thursday in the journal Nature.
They likened the potential impact of the forces to previous major changes - both gradual and abrupt - in the planet's history that triggered mass extinctions and expansions, and produced completely new worldwide environments.
The most recent of those was the sporadic end of the last ice age that began 14,000 years ago and shifted rapidly from warm to cold and then back to warm again over a few thousand years. That period saw the extinction of half the world's large animal life, and then the spread of an expanding human population to every continent on the planet.
Wednesday, June 6th 2012, 10:25 AM EDT
Hadley CRUT3 global temperature anomaly. Reproduced from Prof. Lindzen's presentation to House of Commons, Slide 11 of 58 -- with superimposed absolute temperature in red on left added for comparison.
What percentage change in global mean temperature (GMT) has occurred since the Industrial Revolution began? This can be calculated only by using an absolute temperature scale. Answer = +0.3%.
Can this be so alarming to Al Gore? Indeed, the Kelvin absolute scale for temperature is one of only seven basic units of measure recognized in the International System of Units. Temperature measures the heat content of a substance -- a simple linear relation so long as the zero of the temperature scale is properly placed. Heat itself is a form of energy measured in joules, calories, or BTUs. The thermodynamic science of heat flow requires the use of Kelvin because Kelvin eliminates the problem of negative temperature readings encountered with the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales. Heat can flow into and out of any mass, be it solid, liquid, or gas. Reduction of heat makes it colder. There is no such thing as negative heat (anti-heat?). Therefore, negative temperature conveys no meaning, either.
Absolute zero temperature occurs at -273.15º C, or -491.67º F, and signifies a state of matter displaying complete absence of heat. The PBS NOVA television program broadcast an excellent introduction to the science of cryogenics and its fascinating history. Anders Celsius invented his centigrade scale in the late 18th century. Zero of Celsius scale is the temperature of ice-water (32º F), while 100º C is the boiling point (212º F) of water at sea level -- both chosen by Celsius because they are easily reproduced as experimental temperature calibration standards in laboratories around the world. In 1848, Lord Kelvin invented his eponymous thermodynamic temperature scale which employs the same "degree" as the Celsius scale but shifts the zero point to absolute zero1. Therefore, any temperature value recorded in Celsius can be easily converted to Kelvin just by adding 273.15.
Thursday, April 12th 2012, 6:43 AM EDT
Richard S. Lindzen
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT. Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
On February 22, 2012, I gave a lecture at the House of Commons explaining the nature of the arguments for climate alarm, and offering my reasons for regarding the concern as being unjustifiably exaggerated. The slides of this lecture were widely circulated. Not surprisingly, the lecture led to a variety of complaints from those supporting alarm. The most thoughtful of these (by Hoskins, Mitchell, Palmer, Shine and Wolff) was a detailed critique posted at the website of the Grantham Institute that Hoskins heads. While there was a considerable amount of agreement between the critics and myself, the overall tenor of the critique suggested that I was presenting a misleading position. The following is my response to this critique. Since both the critique and my lecture focused on the science, the discussion is, of necessity, technical. Moreover, there are distinct limits to what can be covered in a one hour lecture. The following provides more detail than could be included in the lecture.
The critique by Hoskins et al. of a lecture that I recently gave seems to be primarily a statement of subjective disagreement, though it has important errors, and is highly misleading. The critics are, for the most part, scientists for whom I have considerable respect. The following response to their critique will, I hope, be considered to be part of a constructive exchange. Such constructive exchanges are new in the field of global warming, and, perhaps, represent a return to the normal process of scientific discourse.
66 articles foundshowing page 1 of 7« previous 1 2 3 4
. . . 6 7 next »