A word from Dr. Lindzen: No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature

[ballz2wallz]

Why should we worry about global warming? Dr. Lindzen, a professor at MIT, has this to say about all the hype:

No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

[thomez]

Good read, thanks for posting.

[Roonie]

Lindzen has no issue with the notion that the Earth has warmed. The body that was set up by the United Nations to investigate the phenomenon of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which draws on the expertise of hundreds of climate scientists, engineers, economists, social scientists and others around the world, stated in 2001 that the global mean temperature has increased by about 0.6 °C during the 20th century, a figure that Lindzen thinks is probably about right. He also agrees that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has gone up (with carbon dioxide increasing from about 280 parts per million in about 1700 to over 370 parts per million today), much of which has been caused by human activities. But where he parts company with the IPCC is the extent to which this increasing concentration can cause warming, or in other words, how much man is influencing the climate.

Certainly in public, Richard Lindzen is in the minority when it comes to his belief that man is not seriously heating up the Earth. NASA's Gavin Schmidt believes that Lindzen is "fighting yesterday's battles" and that the issues he is arguing about "were once key uncertainties but are now ready for the textbooks".
A climate of alarm (February 2007) - Physics World - PhysicsWeb

He also has numerous ties with oil and gas companies paying for his research.
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: George C. Marshall Institute

If only all conservatives where this concerned about the minority voice in our country we would be better off.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Roonie

He also has numerous ties with oil and gas companies paying for his research.

His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

[Roonie]

sources added

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

sources added

Which means what? This article was written just a few days ago, specifically stating he receives no funding from anything other than the government.

And do you want to discuss the issues presented in the article, or just pick on Lindzen himself? In your hesitance to take on the issues he presents, does that mean you agree with what he says?

[Roonie]

No I do not agree with Lindzen. I think he found a way to rise above his mediocre career (he is age 66) by going against mainstream science and the majority of the scientific community and voice his dissent. He is getting more interviews and more popularity now then he has ever gotten in his career speaking out against the IPCC. He bases his science on old questions that have since been proven. I think as Gore has done he is using this as a big stepping stone in his current career.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

I think he found a way to rise above his mediocre career (he is age 66) by going against mainstream science and the majority of the scientific community and voice his dissent.

Wow, you have absolutely no idea how hard it is to get tenured at MIT, do you? To say any tenured professor at MIT has had a 'mediocre career' is, well, ignorant at the very least.

[Roonie]

To get fame one must publish a lot. A guarantee position at a university does not bring fame rather a dependable career teaching students. As I stated before he is getting more press and well known now then he has ever gotten in his career to date.

The fact you and I even know his name should be positive proof of this.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

To get fame one must publish a lot.

And what requirements do you think it takes to get tenured at MIT?

Here's his website if you want to take a gander.

One does not become a Alfred P. Sloan Professor for nothing

[Roonie]

Gore has many raving credentials behind his name and got accepted to probably one of the most difficult positions in the world. Does it mean something?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Gore has many raving credentials behind his name and got accepted to probably one of the most difficult positions in the world. Does it mean something?

Are you suggesting MIT allows relatively worthless professors to hold tenured facutly positions?

Something's amiss...

[thomez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are you suggesting MIT allows relatively worthless professors to hold tenured facutly positions?

Something's amiss...

He's saying that the guy was not famous until he took an unpopular position, after being nationally unknown until he was an old man. His new claim to fame is bucking the system. Nowhere did he say he was worthless, only that he was not a famous man until taking this unpopular stance. It could have something to do with his position.... or it could not. Who knows.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

He's saying that the guy was not famous until he took an unpopular position, after being nationally unknown until he was an old man. His new claim to fame is bucking the system. Nowhere did he say he was worthless, only that he was not a famous man until taking this unpopular stance. It could have something to do with his position.... or it could not. Who knows.

And I think he's a fool for thinking so. When was global warming an issue, mid-70s? Surely not. He's had quite a successful career, with his career starting in at LEAST the mid-80s. He was at Harvard before that, and before that at Chicago. Here's a list of his publication record.

Now you tell me, was he a tenured professor at MIT only because he was famous for going against global warming before global warming was even a word? I hardly think so.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And I think he's a fool for thinking so.

No need for name calling.

I have no beef with MIT even though you are desperate to start one for me. I don't care when he became tenured nor is that even relevant to what I have been saying.

I can make a very long list of tenure professors at other Universities who are for Global warming if you want me too. Many of them have signed the IPCC or at least been a part of the creation of it. Their tenure programs are very difficult to get into as well. (don't have time currently have to run errands today).

This one professor who has made it a career to denounce Global warming and go against the majority of the scientific community is someone worth defending in your eyes. So be it. The majority of his peers and the rest of the scientific community think otherwise.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

This one professor who has made it a career to denounce Global warming and go against the majority of the scientific community is someone worth defending in your eyes. So be it. The majority of his peers and the rest of the scientific community think otherwise.

And my point is, one cannot make a career of denouncing something that is just over a decade old, especially when his career is about 5 decades long. So you're wrong in saying his success is due to going against global warming. It's just not true. He was successful far before global warming was even a word you uttered. He was successful probably long before you were born.

And by the way, professors get tenured at MIT because they are better than everyone else. Comparing them to other professors is like comparing pro athletes to college athletes. Ok, maybe there a few other 'pro teams' out there, but most of those professors that signed the IPCC aren't from those institutions.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So you're wrong in saying his success is due to going against global warming.

His most recent success is due to that. The only reason you or I know his name is because he has become the least tarnished (even though he has oil connections) outspoken professor aginst the GW debate. He has become famous for going against all his peer group and the rest of the scientific community. He is now quoted by almost all GW skeptics whenever they have op ed pieces.

If all he taught was meteroligcall studies at MIT we would not even know who this character was. The fact that he has made it his mission to be in as many op ed pieces as he can makes him successful in opposing the majority view and going against the IPCC. To say his current success is not because of this would be false.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

His most recent success is due to that. The only reason you or I know his name is because he has become the least tarnished (even though he has oil connections) outspoken professor aginst the GW debate. He has become famous for going against all his peer group and the rest of the scientific community. He is now quoted by almost all GW skeptics whenever they have op ed pieces.

If all he taught was meteroligcall studies at MIT we would not even know who this character was. The fact that he has made it his mission to be in as many op ed pieces as he can makes him successful in opposing the majority view and going against the IPCC. To say his current success is not because of this would be false.

Uh, I think it's safe to say his fame is due to the global warming issue, but not necessarily his success. Like most professors, they are only known within their circles of research. Other than that, they are unknown, but just as successful. It's important you differentiate between the two.

But you're right, no layperson would know him if it weren't for an impending issue in todays politics, but that's true for anyone in science.

[Linzyhop]

hey ballz, i just found a very interesting article from BBC on this.... i'll start a new thread.