Tuesday, June 02, 2009 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Richard Lindzen on climate sensitivity and sensibilities

This is the talk that Dr Richard Lindzen (MIT) just gave in the DC, on the Third International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC 2009b):

Larger transparencies are here (click). Full screen.

Lindzen begins with some sociology. Alarmist papers are spreading because papers in all disciplines that are related to the alarm get a preferential treatment and are supported, even before solid or relevant results are found.

Low-quality scientific work and the low-quality scientists themselves are not being filtered out because they know how to use the fad and publish lousy papers that will be promoted by the environmental ideologues, anyway. That's called the "opportunism of the weak".

He switches to the science and discusses how the feedback coefficient "f" is determined. Recall that the warming is determined by

Delta T = Delta T0 / (1-f)
where Delta T_0 is the bare warming without feedbacks. For a negative "f", the effect is weakened by the feedbacks.

For a positive "f", between 0 and 1, the effect is strengthened, and that's what the people around the IPCC uncritically believe to happen.

If "f" were greater than one, the positive feedback would be strong enough to cause an instability: the negative warming that you would naively get from the formula would describe the lower temperature in the past, rather than in the future, from which the past and future, exponentially escalating warming began.

Such an instability is physically excluded because the Earth hasn't run out of control at least for 4.5 billion years.

Lindzen shows that all the current models have a positive "f", pretty close to "1", morally incorporated in them, but the the tests depend on "f" so slowly (due to noise that can't be eliminated) that it was impossible to increase the accuracy of "f" (by fitting) visibly in the last 30 years.

One of the key reasons why this attempted "improvement" of the models has led nowhere is that the actual "f" in the real world is close to "-1", halving the bare value of the warming (around 0.5 °C per CO2 doubling, as his computations suggest). According to Lindzen, that can be determined from direct observations of the long-wave (thermal) and short-wave (visible) radiation.

There is a discernible gap - one in the sensitivity values - between the fashionable models and the scientific reality. This gap is caused by a similar gap between the proper scientific reasoning where right figures are being chosen by cruel cold scientific tests and the collective reasoning of the contemporary climatological community controlled by triage, opportunism of the weak, and free riding where the key criterion is the consistency with the idiotic activists' sensibilities.

Everyone is sure that glass is liquid, too.

Via Anthony Watts and The Heritage Foundation.

France loves Klaus's book

The French language became the tenth language into which Václav Klaus's book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" ("Planète bleue en péril vert"), was translated.

And somewhat surprisingly, France really loves his explanation why global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the French people.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (2) :

reader Anonymous said...

Heartland not Heritage

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Anthony, actually no. The website I credit as my co-source is a blog of the Heritage Foundation, just click it.

I realize that the conference is organized by Heartland.

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');