2012-02-28 17:22:03Lindzen's London Illusions
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.231

I took a whack at Lindzen's British presentation.

Richard Lindzen Misinforms Britains

Richard Lindzen Misinforms Brits

Lindzen's London Illusions

2012-02-28 17:27:05
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.214.222.3

Dana.

Britain is the country. The people are Britons.

250 memebers -> 250 members

2012-02-28 20:09:27
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

presenations > presentations

 

Under the letter bit, perhaps mention the number funded by the fossil fuel industry.

 

 

Lindzen does not perform any analysis here; he simply shows a graph of HadCRUT3 data and asserts it shows no warming since 1997.  This is false.  HadCRUT3 has a very slight warming trend since 1997, but it does show a (statistically insignificant) 0.02°C warming over that period.

More importantly, we know HadCRUT3 is biased low and will soon be replaced with HadCRUT4.  GISTEMP shows a 0.14°C warming since 1997, and NOAA shows 0.073°C.  This despite the fact that virtually every non-greenhouse gas influence on temperature has been in the cooling direction over that period.   Human aerosol emissions increased, blocking more sunlight.  Heat accumulated in the deep oceans.  The solar cycle went into an extended minimum.  There were a number of strong La Niña events.  Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) showed that when we filter out the latter two effects and that of volcanic activity, the warming of surface temperatures has not even slowed (Figure 1).

 

 

I'd delete the bit about the 0.02 C warming, it's so close to zero as to effectively be zero. I'd also mention that HadCRUT3 is missing data, and the reason HadCRUT4 is coming is because we have new stations in the Arctic that can now be added.

2012-02-29 03:13:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Britons eh?  Learn something new every day!  Thanks guys, will make those changes.

2012-02-29 03:22:10
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.200.254

Glenn Tamblyn, should I be bringing up Brittany at this point, or will that just add to the confusion?

2012-02-29 03:43:21
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Dana,

Looking good.  I have some ideas/thoughts, but I also have to take care of some work today.  

Re "no wamring since 1997" he falsely attributes that to Phil Jones saying

"As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. However, there are uncertainties in the above data, and small adjustments can result in negligible warming or cooling over this period. In the polarized public discourse, this leads each side to claim the other side is lying. However, Jones’ statement remains correct."

This is very, very wrong and quite the shameless sleight of hand by Lindzen.  As we all know the original claim (and we know that Lindzen picked the original cherry pick in an email to Watts) was for 1995-2009, BUT when one inlcuded 2010 data the trend was statistically significant at the 95% level.  You wrote an update on it here. Phil Jones' statement is not correct in the context that it was originally meant to apply to!  And GISTEMP, of course, looks quite different for 1997-2011.

2012-02-29 04:19:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

The problem there is that since 2011 was a relatively cool year, the HadCRUT3 trend over the past 15 years is again not statistically significant.  But I did note that GISS and NOAA show a very different story.

2012-02-29 04:59:54
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

Richard Lindzen Talks To Like-Minded Idiots

but that may not be in line with SkS policy.  ;-)

 

Richard Lindzen Uses The Venue Ploy

 

Many venerable institutions rent out rooms to help generate income.  The UK Parliament is no exception: any member of the legislature can rent a room for private purposes.  The fact that a meeting is held under a Parliamentary roof does not imply that the meeting carries any endorsement from Parliament.

Reports which state or imply that Lindzen addressed Parliament are quite simply wrong.

On 22 February 2012, Richard Lindzen gave a seminar in a committee room of the British House of Commons.  Lindzen's presentation,

On 22 February 2012, Richard Lindzen gave a talk to invited guests in a rented room in the Palace of Westminster.  Lindzen's presentation,

 

(We should strongly rebut the denier meme that Lindzen or any of his cohorts addressed Parliament.)

I have been in the Palace of Westminster many times.  The public tends to know only of the two debating chambers.  There are in fact many hundreds of smaller rooms linked by the corridors of power.  Unless a meeting is convened under the auspices of Parliamentary authority it is just a few people chatting privately in a room.

 

Britain Brit Briton Breton Benjamin Britten ;-)

2012-02-29 05:58:27
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Fair enough, I'll make a point at the beginning that he wasn't actually addressing Parliament.

2012-02-29 10:51:25
Chris Colose

colose@wisc...
169.226.41.99

There's a couple things that I think could improve,

1) It might help in the long run to acknowledge where Lindzen is right (which is actually quite a bit).  I liked the part in his lecture where he emphasizes that it is a waste of time to argue things like the existence of the greenhouse effect, that CO2 is rising, that temp is rising, etc, and that dwelling on this stuff inhibits progress.  He also does a good job of discussing the greenhouse effect theory (toward the end).  I was extremely surprisied and happy to see that he did not abuse the 'hotspot' issue, and quite correctly mentioned that there are credible reasons to believe that this is an observational problem. 

2)  Is 'Lindzen's Hypocrisy' section even necessary? There's a lot of time that could be devoted to his strawman attacks, hypocrisy, etc, but I don't know if it's worth it.

 

3) There's a lot more to add for his talk about the Arctic.  For one, his claims about Arctic sea ice extent aren't just a matter of how you scale a graph.  Regardless of that, summer sea ice extent is still going down nearly 40% since the satellite record began.  The signal is smaller but still significant for all the other seasons too.  A lot of people would call that a big change.  Even more, all his statements about storms entering the Arctic, wind blowing ice away, etc are all true, but that doesn't explain why we see a *change* is temperature or ice extent in these latitudes.  He's just describing meteorological conditions, which are no doubt important, and tough to disintangle from the effects of anthropogenic warming.  But it doesn't at all follow that CO2 is unimportant.

His discussion of summer temperatures in the Arctic reflect ignorance of the literarture.  You could highlight, for example,  Serreze, 2009, "The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification".  This, among many others, clearly shows that there is a complex seasonality in the Arctic in how heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean throughout the year...and also refutes his strawman about too much empahsis being on the annual mean.  In fact, a lot of people have looked into the seasonality issue. 

Many regions of the globe (e.g., in monsoon regions) have complex structure to the seasonal cycle, such that they can't be easily fit by a simple sine wave for example. In this example, the Arctic tends to be flattended out in the summer time to near the freezing point (Actually, near 273 K on his own graphs) because a lot of the extra energy is going into phase change (melting or evaporation) rather than temperature rise. In fact, counterintuitively, the temperature manifestation of the ice-albedo feedback is currently weakest in summertime even though that is when the Arctic receives sunlight.  That extra energy in the ocean is important however for delaying the onset of ice formation in cold months, regulating the thickness of ice, etc.

4) I'm interested in the Faint Young sun subject.  Lindzen has a single paper on it in 2010 which explains why his IRIS hypothesis can resolve the Faint Young Sun problem.  I don't think too many planetary scientists think CO2 was the only thing going on, but no one has unequiovocally shown that it wasn't a big player.  But his cloud idea rests on 1) his IRIS idea being correct, which is very controversial 2) That he can extrapolate those physics to the Archaean, far from obvious.  Moreover, others (e.g., Goldblatt and Zahnle, 2011) have shown that tackling the faint sun issue with high cloud feedbacks requires very unconvincing parameters (like 100% cloud cover, much thicker high-altitude clouds, and high/colder clouds). 

5) His point about less storms in a warming world are silly on multiple counts, since a lot of projections aren't simply for "more storms" but have complex issues associated with intensity, duration, changes in tracks, etc.  It is also far too simple- In the tropics for instance, latent heat drives a lot of storms (like hurricanes) and has little, if anything, to do with baroclinic instability. 

2012-02-29 11:07:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good suggestions, thanks Chris.  From what I've read, it's pretty generous to call the IRIS hypothesis "very controversial" at this point.  I'd call it "very likely wrong."

2012-02-29 12:31:53
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

Dana - thanks for making the change.  That's a cool link and a nice debunk of the 'addressed Parliament bunkum.

Doubleplus good.  :-)

A small point: Brits is understood internationally and is not insulting to at least this Brit.

Richard Lindzen Misinforms Brits

? any comments from other Brits?

2012-02-29 12:37:55
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
60.228.1.94

Tom.

Brittany! You can bring it up if you like but since the post is about Lindzen misleading the people of Great Britain, the people of Less Britain won't be very interested.

Interesting fact I came across some years back - nearly 1/3rd of William the Conquerer's Army weren't Normans, they were from Brittany. Seemingly intent on reclaiming their homeland from those invaders the Anglo-Saxons. Nothing like bearing a grudge for 300 years.

2012-02-29 19:00:37
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

Glenn: Norman = North man = Viking.  So, after Harold's men using Viking axes defeated the Vikings at Stamford Bridge they were defeated by other "Vikings".  This was a fatal day to England, and melancholy havoc was wrought in our dear country during the change of its lords.

 

I will now briefly mention the Brutons - inhabitants of Bruton - before I hereby declare this thread to be hopelessly derailed. ;-)

2012-02-29 19:49:11
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
81.144.132.166

I see no mention of Lindzen using out of date Sea Ice graphs - they are from 2010 or earlier, because they were originally used in his presentation to the US House in Nov 2010. Sloppy if nothing else.

I have added more info here : http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=4700&r=7

'Richard Lindzen misinforms the Brits' is more grammatically correct.

Or 'Richard Lindzen misinforms Britain'.

Or 'Richard Lindzen misinforms Britons', but that sounds a bit archaic.

2012-03-01 02:04:18
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.200.254

Glenn, so the Danes pretending they were French enlisted the help of the Celts who remembered being British to conquer he Germans pretending they were Britons!  Who said history was complicated.

2012-03-01 02:53:10
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Dana,

I think something really needs to be said about LIndzen's statement that the changes in the Actic are not unprecedented-- the changes are unrepcedented on a multi-millenial time scale and cannot be explained by natural variability. It does not have to be a long rebuttal you can link to Polyak et al 2010, they find:

"The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."

These findings from Thibodeau et al. (2010):
"We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years."

And from Kinnard et al. (2011):
"Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years"
"These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming."

2012-03-01 02:54:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Alby, I'll add those references and a few quotes.  And note the outdated sea ice graphs too.

2012-03-01 02:57:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Dana,

Just noticed-- your Figure 3 does not have data through 2011.

2012-03-01 09:14:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Dana,

Thanks. Just to rub it in nicely (H/T to Robert way):

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/09218181/v84-85inone_c/3_rmrocaathifm.xml

"Arctic ice core melt series (latitude range of 67 to 81 N) show the last quarter century has had the highest melt in two millennia and The Holocene-long Agassiz melt record shows that the last 25years has the highest melt in 4200years."

Yes Dick, all is well /sarc.

2012-03-01 10:35:20
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
92.234.38.207

It should really be the 'UK Parliament' and 'UK legislature' in the first paragraph (rather than 'British' in either case), just to be more correct !

2012-03-01 16:41:57updated
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

Okay, I incorporated most of the comments here at least.  As noted in the post, I can't cover every error/misrepresentation in Lindzen's talk, but I think we've at least got the big ones covered.

Richard Lindzen Misinforms Brits

2012-03-01 23:46:58
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
213.120.211.100

Looks good to me.

One little thing, though - the title grates a little with me. It should really be "...misinforms THE Brits". However, either way, perhaps you're making his talk seem more important and widely-heard than it actually was. How about :

Richard Lindzen's London Illusion

(But, in the end, I suppose the title is not that important so this is only a nit-pick)

2012-03-02 03:19:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

It's useful to have a good title.  I like the London Illusion suggestion as it fits well with the Lindzen Illusions series.

2012-03-02 03:44:56
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Dana,

Many thanks for incorporating my suggestions.  Small typo NISDC in Fig. 3 caption should be NSIDC.

2012-03-02 08:42:10
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

I thought the sub-heading "Lindzen's Hypocrisy" was a little strong until I read the text that followed!

Typos:

"polictical"

"pensentiation"

"skepics"

2012-03-02 14:34:03
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

While meteorological conditions are important in explaining yearly variations in the amount of summer Arctic sea ice, they cannot explain the long-term trend illustrated in Figure 3.  That is due to a long-term (primarily CO2-caused) warming.  But Lindzen's final comment about the Arctic is one of his worst misrepresentations:

 

The very latest report on warming impacts in the Arctic, from Nature, would give a knockout punch to the 'not unprecedented' BS - I posted a thread here.

 

The presentation was much more suited to someone like Christopher Monckton than a prominent climate scientist.

suggestion:

The presentation seems to have been aimed at pleasing Christopher Monckton rather than informing the rest of the audience about the scientific realities.

 

I like the new, improved version with added climastrological inhibitase!

2012-03-02 15:23:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

Thanks guys, I fixed the typos, added a link to the Nature article from logicman, and also a link to Martin Lack's post on the subject.

2012-03-02 16:22:21
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

Great!  I particularly like the new title!

 

I already gave a thumb, but -

:thumb:

:thumb:

:thumb:

:thumb:

:thumb:

2012-03-02 22:35:56
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
81.144.132.166

Actually, from the Martin Lack link you give at the end of the Post, it seems that this seminar is based on an even earlier presentation given by Lindzen at the Heartland ICCC in May 2010 - 6 months before the House presentation he gave, which is virtually the same. So this is three times now that he has used this !

2012-03-03 03:02:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah true, I'll make a note of that at the beginning.

2012-03-06 14:45:28
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.184.204.224

Dana: there is a very complete article about the presentation here.

btw, that organisation - http://repealtheact.org.uk - lists members who are trustees of the GWPF.

 

Heartland Institute has repeated the false information that Lindzen addressed the House of Commons.

 

From http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

LINDZEN PRESENTS “SKEPTIC” CASE TO HOUSE OF COMMONS

Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen delivered a

comprehensive presentation to the British House of Commons last week explaining why humans

are not creating a global warming crisis. Lindzen compiled a 58-page pdf document, which he has

made available to the general public, to accompany the presentation. The document is

comprehensive, well-written, and linked below.

SOURCE: Richard Lindzen and the UK Telegraph