2011-01-20 09:16:11Lindzen article
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
For future reference, the Lindzen article re-posted on WUWT.  Chalk full of inaccurate and intentionally misleading statements.  I got dibs on his claim that we're over 80% of the way to the anthropogenic forcing from a doubling of CO2.
2011-01-21 09:15:59same errors, opposite result
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Universal Ecological Fund makes the same mistakes as Lindzen (ignoring negative forcings, warming in the pipeline), but with 'alarmist' results.  An interesting contrast.  Discussed by Bart and RC.
2011-01-21 11:23:15UEF
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

I read part of the UEF report-- how they arrived at that ridiculous amount of warming by 2020 is embarrassing. They really messed up.

Please tell me some of the informed folks at SkS are going to take Lindzen to task for his inane comments and BS (bad science)....

2011-01-21 11:56:44in process
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210
Yeah, I'm about to start writing a blog post contrasting the reactions to the UEF/Lindzen errors.  Later on we'll probably do a Lindzen series in the same style as Monckton Myths (assuming MM goes over well).
2011-01-28 20:29:57
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209
Don't know where to post this. For future reference, Lindzen claiming "There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995".
2011-02-01 20:05:25
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209
One more thought. The Lindzen serie should start with the iris hypothesis, but not beacause it was wrong. On the contrary, it was a reasonable hypothesis that need to be taken seriously, as it was. We should highlight that he currently works on climate issue and that his peer review-published ideas are analyzed and verified by his peers as always happens. The problem is not being wrong in a paper/s, the problem rises with all the other things he says outside the proper scientific circles. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? :)
2011-02-01 21:12:03Theme for Lindzen series
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
Good suggestion, Riccardo. I suggest we plan out the Lindzen series similar to the MMs but take it s little further and establish a theme that most or all posts reinforce. I was thinking a theme like Lindzen makes fundamental mistakes a scientist should understand, letting the reader decide for themselves whether he's incompetent or dishonest. But maybe Riccardo's Jekyll and Hyde theme is the way to go. Or both? I guess we'll go through his articles and see what emerges.
2011-02-01 21:56:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204

It's not credible that Lindzen is simply incompetent: He holds an endowed chair in atmospheric sciences at MIT.

It might be interesting to find passages in his published papers that clearly accept the general causal framework of climate science, and contrast them with texts from his WSJ op-eds, etc.

We don't have to say he's being hypocritical: We can simply express surprise at the obvious inconsistency.

 

2011-02-01 22:57:48
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Ugly details on the iris hypothesis are available here:

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/papers-on-the-iris-hypothesis-of-lindzen/

2011-02-01 23:15:10
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Here is an old Lindzen article (Some coolness concerning global warming, 1990, BAMS):

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf

And here is a paper addressing some of the Lindzen's claims (Response to Skeptics of Global Warming, Kellogg, 1991, BAMS):

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281991%29072%3C0499%3ARTSOGW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

2011-02-01 23:21:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204

Is it your impression that the "iris" is dead, or is there still a 20% chance for it?

I have never been clear on the rationale behind the proposed mechanism: Does Lindzen have some intuition that there is a nearly-complete homeostasis, or did some numerical result convince him that this was true?

For example, I skimmed through Spencer's article on AGW, and just got the impression that he just didn't think significant AGW would happen, and so he started making up ways in which it could avoid happening. But my feeling was that his starting point was, literally, religious: he just didn't think it could happen (essentially, God wouldn't do that to us).

2011-02-02 02:02:28
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.104.236

"Is it your impression that the "iris" is dead, or is there still a 20% chance for it?"

My opinion is that it's dead, but my opinion is not relevant. I have no idea how large percentage chance it has to be correct, but it just seems to me that only ones finding evidence for it are Lindzen et al., while anyone else looking at it finds evidence that goes against the hypothesis. It also needs to be remembered that Lindzen et al. have only studied very short-term effects and I think they have only studied noise. It makes no sense to look at some SST + cloud change event of few months and try to determine climate sensitivity from that. Such short-term changes don't include any effects that might occur in the oceanic and atmospheric large scale circulation (which affects clouds) due to global warming.

One can also ask that if there's such an iris effect at work, then why did we just experience very rapid 0.7 K increase in global mean temperature? One could then argue that perhaps the iris effect takes time to react to warming, but then one needs to ask why are Lindzen et al. looking at short time changes then?

Yep, I don't see much chance for it - observations are against it.

2011-02-02 02:29:14
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204
Lindzen still publishes papers pushing the idea, however; and there are a few co-authors. Are these all graduate students and indentured post-docs, or does he have people who really believe in his ideas somewhere?
2011-02-02 03:08:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

"Does Lindzen have some intuition that there is a nearly-complete homeostasis,..."

Don;t quote me on this, but I recall him making passing reference to that (and the SAT record almost being a random walk) in his testimony to Congress.  Sorry, I cannot recall exactly where.  I wish I knew where to track down an official transcript.

 

2011-02-02 03:29:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

I do not see Choi (from L&C09) on this list. Maybe Choi was a PostDoc at the time...Google, Google.....oh, here we go. Choi:

December 2008-Present.                Postdoctoral research associate at M.I.T. (Adviser: Prof. Richard S. Lindzen)

Interestingly Lindzen and Choi (2009) is not featured on Lindzen's list of publications, here.

Anyone else find it ironic that Lindzen is a recipient of the Charney award?

I was surprised/intrigued that Lindzen has no official training or qualifications as a meteorologist or climate scientist. BSc was in physics, MSc in applied mathematics and PhD in applied mathematics.

2011-02-02 04:07:10
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204

Well, atmospheric science is a relatively new discipline, maybe even it should be considered an inter-discipline. If you look Lindzen up on the Wikipedia, one has to admit that he's had a distinguished career; maybe a bit more mathematical than most folks in the field, I suspect. Some of his early work involved radiative transfer theory and also the ozone issue; ironic, in view of the ideological attacks by his comrades in arms on both those issues.

The physicist Gell-Mann once made a crack about certain British physicists, that they would rather be "clever" than right. I suspect something similar may be going on here as well. After all, if you're part of the crowd, where's the glory, even if the crowd is right?

2011-02-02 04:19:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

Quite a few of my colleagues (meteorologists) completed undergrads or even MSc degrees in physics, cosmology or mathematics, but they were then required to complete meteorology courses (sometimes more than required for others) as part of their MSc or PhD requirements in order to graduate with a met degree.

 

I like that quote, it seems to sum up Lindzen perfectly.

2011-02-02 04:30:57
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204
Well, if you look at his research work, you would have a hard time saying that he hasn't been making very substantial contributions to meteorology/atmospheric physics. Take a look at the wiki article on him.
2011-02-02 04:47:06
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I've often said that contrarians, like Lindzen, are important to the process of science.  His failed papers (LC09) and the responses (Trenberth 2010) mean nearly as much to the process of understanding climate science as papers that hit the mark.  Knowing where something fails is just as important as knowing how it works.

We love to pounce on Lindzen for his inaccuracies but he plays an important role in the overall process.

That said, don't let up on the guy for one instant!! 

2011-02-02 04:48:38
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

I think we are getting our wires crossed, there is no denying that he has been a prolific publisher of peer-reviewed material, and that he has undoubtedly advanced the science. And I know from colleagues' experiences that most physicists etc. are more than capable to make the transition to meteorology and climate science.

I was intrigued that Lindzen has had no formal/official, IIRC, meteorology training-- that was not meant to be a slight.  It was just a surprise to me, because he is always referred to as a meteorologist, and I never thought to follow-up on that until today. So I guess kudos to him for doing all this on the fly early in his career.

That all said, he is very likely (most likely?) wrong about climate sensitivity.

2011-02-02 04:56:52
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204

Rob,

about his journal articles: Yes

about his WSJ op-eds: No; these play an important role in climate science like rats & fleas played an important role during the medieval plagues.

2011-02-02 05:01:09
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223
Neal...  VERY much agreed on that point.  That is where he ceases being a contrarian and starts being a denier.
2011-02-02 05:12:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal and Rob,

 Re the journals WSJ op-eds...agreed.

2011-02-02 06:09:11
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.104.236
I have to disagree on LC09 being an example on useful skeptic paper. The article has very bad methodological flaws and the whole work rests on those flaws. In order to be useful, a skeptic paper should at least have their science right, in my opinion. I know plenty of examples in astronomy - the field I'm more familiar with than climate science - of papers that go very strongly against the mainstream ideas but still have their science right.
2011-02-02 06:24:09
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Ari...  But my point is that reviewing and seeing those flaws is part of the process of science.  Lindzen is no slacker.  He's working hard to try to prove AGW wrong.  The fact that he fails so miserably, that he has to go to such extreme lengths, tells you a TON about how robust the rest of the science actually is.

But you also have to give him credit.  He's not trying to publish papers saying that CO2 has no radiative effects or any other such obviously idiotic tactics.  He sticks as close to science as one possibly can and still reject AGW.

I tell deniers all the time they better stick closer to Lindzen and Spencer because, if you're going to reject AGW, that's as close as you're going to get to real science. 

2011-02-02 06:24:17
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OT,

But Lindzen is on Monckon's email list of recipients. No self respecting climate scientist would associate with Monckton.  IMHO, the fact that Lindzen appears to be part of Monckton's inner circle is troubling and suggests that Lindzen may be more interested in pushing his ideology rather than science with merit.  His WSJ editorials and his evidence to Congress reveal that.

2011-02-02 08:42:24
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Albatross...  Absolutely he's more interested in pushing ideology.  I think that's the irony of his papers.  His failures in the peer-reviewed literature bolster the case for AGW.  

Just remember, no one ever won the game by underestimating the other team. 

2011-02-02 09:24:14
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.80

"the fact that Lindzen appears to be part of Monckton's inner circle is troubling"

and the fact that Pielke appears to be behind Watts and surfacestation is troubling too.

2011-02-02 09:45:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204

But Pielke seems to be playing Watts et al. as well: He deftly shunted their failure to establish a UHI problem into his own research angle on warming through land-use modification.

I suspect his real motive: He enjoys playing Sherlock Holmes to Watts et al.'s "Baker Street Irregulars".