Con: Earth is never in equilibrium
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Is climate change real?
To a significant extent, the issue of climate change revolves around the elevation of the commonplace to the ancient level of ominous omen. In a world where climate change has always been the norm, climate change is now taken as punishment for sinful levels of consumption. In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the global mean temperature anomaly (GATA), as portents of disaster.
Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again.
For small changes in GATA, there is no need for any external cause. Earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Examples include El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, etc. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all change in the globally averaged temperature anomaly since the 19th century. To be sure, man’s emissions of carbon dioxide must have some impact. The question of importance, however, is how much.
A generally accepted answer is that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks. The observed warming over the past century, even if it were all due to increases in carbon dioxide, would not imply any greater warming.
However, current climate models do predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide might produce more warming: from 3.6 degrees F to 9 degrees F or more. They do so because within these models the far more important radiative substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever an increase in carbon dioxide might do. This is known as positive feedback. Thus, if adding carbon dioxide reduces the ability of the earth system to cool by emitting thermal radiation to space, the positive feedbacks will further reduce this ability.
It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive. Citing but one example, 2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s.
This was referred to by Carl Sagan as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. For 30 years, there has been an unsuccessful search for a greenhouse gas resolution of the paradox, but it turns out that a modest negative feedback from clouds is entirely adequate. With the positive feedback in current models, the resolution would be essentially impossible.
Interestingly, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from manmade gases is already about 86 percent of what one expects from a doubling of carbon dioxide (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons, and ozone). Thus, these models should show much more warming than has been observed. The reason they don’t is that they have arbitrarily removed the difference and attributed this to essentially unknown aerosols.
The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.
However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.
Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.
The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.
One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.
Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.
It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.
Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.
Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence.
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT. Readers may send him e-mail at rlindzenmit.edu. He wrote this for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va.
Jan 1, 2011 at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Here is another thought: Money. The UN is wants "developed" countries to hand over some of their money to "developing" countries to fight "climate change". To those who want to argue with my statement, just look into the UN's report about that. Just recently, the President pledged 1 million, or was 1 billion dollars from our GDP over 5 yrs? to give to the UN so they can manage and distribute the funds. This is the same UN that is in Haiti and other countries that they are having problems and cannot keep things running effiently.
Apr 13, 2010 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
We've all brought out good points, the next problem is the Fairy tale that CO2 from the atmosphere can cause acidification of the oceans. Why haven't these supposed scientist looked at the pH of the Great Lake before they claim that the SKY IS FALLING UP.
Apr 13, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
cleanwater MooShoo
I think that perhaps you misunderstood my reaction on the result of the calculation.
The proponents of AGW predict dire consequences if the radiative balance of the Earth is departed from.
So I thought well what if there was absolutely no balance whatsoever.
Hence the calculation (rather far fetched I agree)
But what we find from the thermal capacity of the Earth that is its a robust old ship and can take variations from radiative balance in its stride.
I'm also a big fan of G&T and RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Apr 13, 2010 at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bryan - why worry about the heating of the earth by solar radiation- first off the core heat of the earth will show that you are missing the point. Next lets look at the reality that every 12 hours the surface of the earth can increase in temperature from freezing to 20 to 30 degrees or more on a good clear day. Them most of that heat is lost back to space during the 12 hours of "darkness" If we are going into summer much of the heating of water and land starts to accumulate- if we are going into winter more is lost than is retained,thus we have seasons.
The real important thing is that the greenhouse gas effect was first disproved in 1909 by R.W.Wood and in 2007 and peer reviewed paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner and published in the International Journal of Modern Physics proves that the ghg effect violates fundamental laws of physics thus man-made global warming is a political hoax. List of references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
The following text is from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine ???check this more exactly???), 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you're interested.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t... at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted - they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
Apr 13, 2010 at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
DwightKSchrute
Thanks for the reply.
The model is very simple.
An Earth of uniform material and reasonable conductivity.
Water has SHC of 4200.
I have picked a fairy low value of SHC so as not to exaggerate the time or it would be even longer than 1080 years.
Apr 13, 2010 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bryan, nice try but your formula seems to be missing a few factors. First, the specific heat capacity between land and water is largely different (water has a very high specific heat and land a very low). Second, does your equation consider the tilt of the earth or does it assume equal insolation everywhere?
.
Anyway, not sure if your post is trying to be serious or not, but to answer your question it would take less than a day. Think about it, we warm up significantly during the day and if none of that energy was ever dispersed from the surface of the earth, we would suddenly warm up one day and never cool down again - according to what you are asking.
Apr 13, 2010 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
While global warming is important, it is not on the top of our world's 'mother nature' priority list.
Many geo-physical scientists believe that solar flares will disrupt Global Positioning System (GPS) in 2011.
The worlds military, private and public sector navigation, power and communications systems that rely on GPS satellite navigation will be disrupted by violent solar activity in 2011, scientific research shows.
Global Positioning System receivers are vulnerable to bursts of radio noise produced by solar flares, which are created by explosions in the Sun's atmosphere.
When our solar activity peaks in 2011 and 2012, it may cause widespread disruption to aircraft navigation and emergency location systems that rely heavily on satellite navigation data.
Particularly intense solar activity occurs roughly every 11 years due to cyclic changes to the Sun's magnetic field - a peak period known as the solar maximum.
Solar flares send charged particles crashing into the outer fringes of the Earth's atmosphere at high velocity, generating auroras and geomagnetic storms.
Charged particles created from solar flares also produce intense bursts of radio noise, which peak in the 1.2 and 1.6 gigahertz - the same frequency bands used by GPS. Normally, radio noise in these bands is very low, so receivers can easily pick up weak signals from orbiting satellites.
So often our scientists cannot see the forest from the trees. While these geniuses discuss strategies for putting out fires, Rome burns!
These brillinat people should be devising ways for our survival during the upcoming radical solar flares season in 2011.
Apr 13, 2010 at 6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Just playing around with my calculator I thought that it would be interesting to work out the following problem.
If the Earth absorbed all the Suns radiation that landed on it and absolutely no heat escaped.
How long would it take for the temperature to rise by 1 degree centigrade.
Formula used
Pxt =cm(tepm rise)
P=1367W/m2x(crosssectional area of Earth)
t =time in seconds
C = specific heat capacity = 1000 (you can tweek this number if you like)
m = Mass of Earth =6x10power24
When calculated it turns out to be 1080 years.
I checked again and got the same answer.
It seems incredibly long.
Could some numerate reader check my calculation?
Apr 12, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
The coyotes, coons, cockroaches and crows are waiting patiently for things to play out.
Though I'm not sure they'll truly appreciate the "irony" inherent in the present debate on global warming when they finally inherit what is left of this world, they will definitely appreciate the carnage!
Apr 10, 2010 at 8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
97% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree humans play a role in global warming. http://tinyurl.com/ygwj2ac. surprisingly even 47% of petroleum geologists (who dont study the climate and are out of a job if we go carbon free) agree... thats about 46% more than cigarettes scientist who thought those are cancer causing.
Apr 10, 2010 at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
An excellent piece by Professor Lindzen. This is particularly significant:
"The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption."
I am proud to report that Dr. Lindzen was a leading endorser of the Copenhagen Climate Challenge - see http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.or... - the UN has yet to respond even though well over three months have passed.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Apr 10, 2010 at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good God. I’ve read some rubbish by Lindzen before (one of the most prolific denialists), but is awful even for him.
Just consider the last two paras – I could only bear to skim the rest.
"Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.
Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence."
I don’t have an “alarmist” view, and nor does anyone else that I’m aware of, so this does not apply to me, Al Gore, or any other boogie men / strawmen. The tiny subset of “alarmists” that are like that because of the strange secret motivations he imagines he understands I think we can safely ignore (assuming there are any).
There is virtually no possibility that warming has ceased. A review of the facts will show this.
I am not interested in those committed to venal agendas – unless they are influencing climate policy, and I see vastly more on the side of ignorance than I do on the side of facts.
When I see hysteria I will resist it – does he have an example?
We are not wasting resources by fighting climate change strongly now – we are massively conserving resources (the payback is around a factor of 20). Now he’s an economist? Sheesh.
Prudence *is* a great thing and Lindzen demonstrates no trace of it. Pudence is why I strongly urge everyone I know to understand climate change, and the need for more prudence – else we may end up with a lousy country and a lousy planet.
Instead of creating phantom hysterical green communists and then railing against them he would be better off re-learning some of the science he used to do when he was younger, and has since forgotten (he has come up with numerous theories all of which miraculously show that GW isn’t happening, or is happening for reasons other than the obvious. None of his theories have stood up for more than 5 minutes.). When Lindzen rediscovers what facts actually are he should apologize for this 'article'. Since he doesn’t actually matter we need not worry whether this happens or not.
Apr 10, 2010 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow! This article has to be a GazetteXtra record for first-time, one-time commentators. Hmmmm...
Apr 10, 2010 at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry to see Prof Lindzen (and other AGW 'skeptics') get tarred with the totally false tobacco story (propagated by commercial 'smear blogs'). The true story is that EPA fiddled the statistical analysis in order to claim that second-hand smoke leads to 3000 lung-cancer deaths a year. A report from the Congressional Research Service documents this
Apr 10, 2010 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hello Richard: As an educated professor it time we start to educate the world that the Term "greenhouse gasses” is very unscientific terminology for concept that violates the fundamental laws of physics. Yes it is easy to use the term but does not help people to realize that the original Hypotheses of Greenhouse gas effect was first disproved in 1909 by R.W.Wood currently the work of two German physicist -Gerlich and Tscheuschner has now been peer reviewed and published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. ( this organization will not lower its' standard to be political correct)
The roll of water/liquid /vapor /solid is frequently described as a "greenhouse gas”, this is totally unscientific language- first much of the water in the atmosphere is as liquid-clouds or as solid-ice or snow also in the clouds. The vapor phase is the only time that the water can be called a gas. Because of the dynamics of the atmosphere at ambient temperatures -the water changes back and forth by the second. If the portion of the atmosphere being observed is in daylight the water will absorb IR radiation and go from either a solid or liquid to the vapor, but if the temperature drops as at the bottom of the clouds it goes back and forth depending on the general temperature. As you will know there is tremendous amounts of energy that is either absorbed or released. There is no physical property of CO2 or any other "ghg" that approaches one billionth of the effect of water/liquid/solid /vapor in the atmosphere. The paper attach by Alan Siddons’s “The flaws in the greenhouse theory" - this paper points out the fact that all gases in the atmosphere radiate IR even thou they do not absorb IR( Kickoff's law of thermodynamics). There is one mistake in the paper in that it states that IR can heat the CO2 or CH4 gases in the atmosphere- this cannot happen - reference Niels Bohr-the Bohr model.
It is time that the scientific world starts using correct language and true scientific laws ‘principals and principles.
List of references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis ViolatesFundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/t... at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST
People that look at a source before they look at the science are choosing to be ignorant.
Apr 10, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Lindzen has opinions. He is one scientist, not a consensus, and represents a minority viewpoint. Debate is healthy, especially as it pertains to global climate.
Yes, he is skeptical of cigarette's connection to cancer. That should raise a red flag.
Apr 10, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrMGA, Myself, I am also concerned about air quality. This has an immediate impact. This guy is lightening the devastation no matter the area.
Apr 10, 2010 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well, this is interesting because it makes very broad assumptions and conclusions without any facts or specific details. Has this guy even read an IPCC report? How come he doesn't cite or know a single published study? His statements are so vague, they are meaningless.
Apr 10, 2010 at 4:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
DavidG- Ah the big bucks arguement which often comes up in this subject. Your big bucks accusation at Dr Lindzin is uncalled for and unfair. I'm afraid 'big bucks' is an interest for both pro AGW and anti AGW parties. AGW itself is now a self perpetuating industry which is bathed in financial subsidies. Just look at Europe where many of the so called clean energy producing companies depend on Government subsidy. They want AGW whether it's true or not -they want the money!
How do all these AGW scientists get their funding? It's pretty obvious really without me having to spell it out for you.
Apr 10, 2010 at 12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
DavidG
I would expect Dr. Lindzen to attract the interest of folks who are dubious of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) doctrine. Who else would they engage, true believer James Hansen (another recipient of scads of CAGW-friendly money)? If you're looking for where big bucks may nudge the science one way or another, look here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive...
Globally, sea ice has not trended markedly in any direction, mildly down in the satellite era. Arctic ice has been down, is now about average for 1979 to date. It is more sensitive to winds and currents than it is to warmth. The low year, 2007, even NASA admits the ice was mostly flushed out into the Atlantic, not melted in place. Glaciers have been retreating for centuries. It is not clearly getting warmer. Look at Alaska's Climate Research Center trend data since 1976 - trend flat to down, and this, "Alaska - the Global Warming Canary!" Even Phil Jones and his buddies, the folks you seem to defend, acknowledge that temps have been trending flat.
Some more questions for you: How is it that we are chipping dead Vikings out of Greenland's permafrost when they were obviously buried when there was no permafrost? Why are we finding mature tree stumps and old farms under retreating glaciers? If Greenland is losing ice mass, how come we had to dig down a couple of hundred feet to retrieve some WWII P-38s?
Let's face it, climate changes all by itself. It does so over periods longer than our lifespans ("Boy, it's never been this cold before!" "Yeah, well, you've only been around 67 years.") We may bump it around a little, but there is absolutely no identified and verified evidence that our piddly CO2 emissions will increase temperatures more than a degree or two, all else equal. The null hypothesis is that what we are observing globally is natural; that has not been significantly refuted. Phil Jones admits that the recorded temperature increases since 1960 look just like those of a couple of other periods decades before we had Hummers.
The positive feedback mechanisms that support CAGW theory have not been conclusively found in the data, only in the sim-climate models. Indeed, we haven't even got enough data to make good guesses, especially for 100 years out.
But to paraphrase Phil Jones, "Look, it can't be this factor or that factor. What else can it be but CO2?" That's the same reasoning that cost us all those virgins centuries ago when Algore, the High Priest, was trying to quiet the volcano rumbling and belching smoke outside the village. Has our science not advanced since then?
Apparently climate science as presented in popular media hasn't.
Lou
Apr 9, 2010 at 11:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is the same guy that claims that cigarette smoking has almost no effect on developing lung cancer. He loves the limelight of being the contrarian and is most likely paid well for his services.
Apr 9, 2010 at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good on the Janesville Gazette for furthering awareness of the great debate on global warming! Interested readers should head over to the blogs WattsUpWithThat and ClimateAudit to learn more.
Apr 9, 2010 at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Lindzen fails to mention that he gets paid big bucks by various think tanks to support this view in a manner that does sound convincing. The "nonprofit" think tanks are funded in turn by some of the oil companies, coal operators, and other firms who have a stake in the matter.
Who cares about models. Just ask him why the Arctic ice is melting? Why the glaciers are disappearing? It is clearly getting warmer despite the more recent cold spell while the sun's sunspot cycle was at its low point. Scientists are observing changes like animal migrations north. Out west, we have millions of trees dying because of some bugs that used to get killed off when it got cold.
Perhaps we should wait until 2015 or so to make some changes. By then we will be in panic mode to find solutions.
Apr 9, 2010 at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
AndrewJackson wrote: "Yea, yea, yea. You couldn't convince a 2 year old that burning oil and gas for a 150 years has had no effect on the planet. Great comic strip this guy lives in."
The author never made that claim. Indeed, he acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions account for 2 degrees of warming during the last century.
Apr 9, 2010 at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Great analysis of where we are currently. A lot of spin, poor science and polarised views leavIng a muddy picture. You missed out the latest work on heliogenic spin-coupling which has a close correlation with cooling periods and solar cycles and might suggest 30 years of cooling. Too many geographers and not enough scientists. We need physicists and astronomers to join the debate. A little more rigour, public data and good analysis is needed and a whole lot less name calling and polarised bigotry and ignorance.
Apr 9, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yea, yea, yea. You couldn't convince a 2 year old that burning oil and gas for a 150 years has had no effect on the planet. Great comic strip this guy lives in.
Apr 9, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think we need an "agree" button.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.