http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedi...s_2148505a.pdf
It begins with a bang, as you would expect:
Here are some other tidbits:
Dr. Lindzen, a climate scientist at MIT for over 30 years, analyzes the assumptions behind the 11 computer models, and compares the actual data used with the results of the computer models. He explains a lot of the physics behind involved in the study of climate, but uses rather simple math, and lots of charts. He will give you and excellent layman's understanding of the physics of troposphere warming and heat balance, essential to understanding the greenhouse gas effect.
He shows the claims about melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and then shows the actual, manipulated data.
He shows Al Gore's "hockey stick" and points out what many people miss -- that the CO2 curve FOLLOWS the Temp curve by several hundred years, showing that temperatures rise BEFORE CO2 does by a considerable time.
In the spring of 2010 a letter, signed by 250 scientists, was sent to the journal Science. The title was "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science".
They were "disturbed" by recent political assaults on scientists in general and climate scientists in particular. They then wrap themselves in the mantel of Galileo, Pasture, Darwin and Einstein as they talk about compelling evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and other science, and extend that mantel to cover AGW.
They then assert that anyone who disagrees with their "settled science" should cease their "McCarthy-like" behavior and submit.
Lindzen responds:
On page 12 he shows how they manipulated data.
It begins with a bang, as you would expect:
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because,
within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be
uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity
of the climate to a doubling of CO 2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed
warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though
to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because,
within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be
uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity
of the climate to a doubling of CO 2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed
warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though
to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a
radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met
with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known
glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
—US Weather Bureau, 1922
In fact, the arctic is notoriously variable; similar statements are available for 1957, and the Skate surfaced at the N. Pole in 1959.
So much for ‘unprecedented.’
radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met
with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known
glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
—US Weather Bureau, 1922
In fact, the arctic is notoriously variable; similar statements are available for 1957, and the Skate surfaced at the N. Pole in 1959.
So much for ‘unprecedented.’
He shows the claims about melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and then shows the actual, manipulated data.
He shows Al Gore's "hockey stick" and points out what many people miss -- that the CO2 curve FOLLOWS the Temp curve by several hundred years, showing that temperatures rise BEFORE CO2 does by a considerable time.
In the spring of 2010 a letter, signed by 250 scientists, was sent to the journal Science. The title was "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science".
They were "disturbed" by recent political assaults on scientists in general and climate scientists in particular. They then wrap themselves in the mantel of Galileo, Pasture, Darwin and Einstein as they talk about compelling evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and other science, and extend that mantel to cover AGW.
They then assert that anyone who disagrees with their "settled science" should cease their "McCarthy-like" behavior and submit.
Lindzen responds:
Here are two of their assertions:
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.
Now, one of the signers was Carl Wunsch. Here is what he says in a recent paper in Journal of Climate (Wunsch et al, 2007) (and repeated a couple of weeks ago in a departmental lecture):
"It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be."
In brief, when we actually go to the scientific literature we see that the ‘authoritative’ assertions are no more credible than the pathetic picture of the polar bear that accompanied the letter.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle.
Now, one of the signers was Carl Wunsch. Here is what he says in a recent paper in Journal of Climate (Wunsch et al, 2007) (and repeated a couple of weeks ago in a departmental lecture):
"It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be."
In brief, when we actually go to the scientific literature we see that the ‘authoritative’ assertions are no more credible than the pathetic picture of the polar bear that accompanied the letter.