Ken, a question (probably strange thought). Remember we talked about non-conventional sources of energy (wind, solar etc). Someone asked this question somewhere on the net. The question is, "Will intalling too many wind turbines impact wind patterns in the long run, just like how C02 levels from industries are screwing up earth's atmosphere?". In other words, "When industries first started, no many would have seen such a big climatic problem. Similarly, wouldn't too many windmills/turbines not impact the directions of wind and impact them in the long run?". Wondering what your take on this is.

I just recently listened to a podcast (NPR-Science Friday, June 26, 2009) in which this very question was put to a wind energy proponent. You can listen to the show for the details, but the numbers he provided were not in the least alarming.

On the plus side a couple of decades of cooling would give us time to finish developing and implementing the technologies needed to make a meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately it is also likely to cut spending on R&D for those technologies because the problem will have been delayed and we seem to be reluctant to put much effort into solving problems that are years and decades into the future.

An interview with an author who posits that $20/gallon gasoline is closer than we think and that the net result will be better lives for most people (after the inevitable pain of adjusting to new life styles.).

I don't know if $20/gallon gasoline is inevitable, but it clearly is going to be more expensive in a few years than it is now. The author suggests that in addition to driving less we'll settle into smaller living spaces that require less fuel, living more closely together so that walking becomes more normal. Taken together these changes will reduce CO2.

Not only that, but cooling will serve to sharpen the debate on whether a climate crisis exists at all. Speaking of that, It is possible balancing factors like this that I have eluded might eventually debunk the crisis. Has anyone seen the contrary evidence to this theory yet?

Not at any science level. We expect to have some years that are cooler and some years that are hotter. To think a hot or cold year by itself signifies anything comes from confusing climate with weather.


Before I start, let me emphasize that there are many feedback mechanisms out there that we either don't know about, or we suspect are there but aren't sure what will set them off. Some of the feedbacks may help cool things down, others may set things off. Climatologist par excellence, Wallace Broecker, said basing his statement on paleoclimatic reconstructions. He was saying

So it is quite possible there will be some feedback mechanism that will cool the earth down (whether it will do it in any amount of time or in time to do help us out we don't know). And when Lindzen first proposed the Iris Hypothesis (publication 2001) everyone sat up and took notice.

The article linked to in RL post appears to be the Iris Hypothesis again. Here is an overview of Lindzen's work in this 2002 article, as well as an overview of contrary evidence that came when no-one could replicate his findings. The overview was written in 2002 and the final thought was 'Very interesting. We need more information on this and better studies'.

There have since been many better studies, more reliable measurements, more satellites to measure heat escape etc, and so far there has been no more evidence to support Lindzen's hypothesis. In fact, using the data he used others were getting positive feedbacks rather than his negative feedbacks. In other words the mechanisms he proposes don't cool the temperature but may actually aggravate it (I think part of this is covered in the link above).

See Chapter 8 of the IPCC report page 638 (p. 48 on the pdf version), upper right paragraph for a list of other research that contradicts Lindzen's findings, and what Lindzen's errors were.

Right now though the Iris Hypothesis looked to be completely debunked so it seems a bit surprising he'd bring it back again. Perhaps he's made some changes to it and fixed up flawed methodology, I don't know. However, it is significant that this newest article is not published in any peer-reviewed journal which may indicate the flaws in his methodology and assumptions have not been corrected.

A 2007 paper by Spencer et al claims to have found support for Lindzen's idea, but according to climatologist Gavin Schmidt... SST=sea surface temperature. Apparently this sentiment is shared by the rest of the climatologists who wonder how or why Spencer could get things so wrong (disclaimer--I don't fully understand what the quote means...all I know is that the experts around the world agree with the quote and disagree with Spencer).

Very unfortunately, in recent years Lindzen has gained a reputation for not being totally honest. I say unfortunately because he investigated negative feedbacks (things that might cool the climate), and our understanding advanced. His ideas were investigated and even when wrong the climatologists learned a bit more about how the system worked.

In 2007, Lindzen appeared in a Newsweek article where he was either misquoted/misunderstood quite badly, or he deliberately played fast and loose with the truth. If the former he should have had Newsweek print a correction or retraction because his credibility took a very serious hit. See here.

In 2009 at the Heartland Conference (not a conference you want to attend if you value your reputation as a scientist--Czech president and science ignoramus V. Klaus spoke there on something he knew nothing about--climate science) Lindzen infamously said his colleagues endorse climate change to win acclaim. He goes on to misrepresent Broecker's papers and slanders him by inferring he lies for fame and money (based in part on his (Lindzen's) misinterpretation of Broecker's work).

Joseph Romm, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Energy summed up Lindzen's performance thus...

In summary: There are negative feedbacks. They may or may not work in time. The Iris Hypothesis does not appear to be one of these negative feedbacks. Lindzen has lost his credibility as a careful scientist. More research may find additional evidence for other negative feedbacks. More research is needed to know if the unknown negative feedbacks will outweigh the known positive feedbacks. The climate system is an angry beast and we're poking it with sticks.

Useful resource at Jim Prall’s site.

Greenfyre among others brings attention to Jim’s work. Quoting loosely from Greenfyre…
So what do you do when some troll says that there were only “26 UN authors” of the IPCC report? How about showing them a table listing all 619 IPCC AR4 wg 1 contributing authors, by citation and works on climate, including institutions where they work? (no, they are/were NOT employed by the UN)? Would that help?

Or when they say “there is no evidence”, would a table of the 2726 most cited authors, linking their work and websites come in handy?

How about a table of those 2726 climate scientists and signatories of public declarations on climate (pro and con) broken down by actual climate work, institutional affiliation, etc?

…of the top 500 most cited authors in the larger list, just 23 (4.6%) have signed any climate skeptic declaration, while 184 (37%) — nearly ten times as many — have signed an ‘activist’ statement (aside from the IPCC reports themselves.)

And George Monbiot takes on the myth that climate change deniers are censored while showing that it was the climatologists who have been actively censored. It is just a brief overview but gives you a starting point to check things out for yourself.

Then there’s a cheeky article with a checklist for identifying those with Anti-Science Syndrome.

Finally Peter Sinclair’s latest crock of the week focuses on Anthony Watts from Watts Up My Sleeve With That who was upset enough over the video that he had YouTube take it down for copyright violations. It has now been reposted as there seem to be no copyright violations at all, but if you want to view it better do it sooner than later--Watt’s not particularly fond of those pesky things called “facts” that contradict his assertions and make him look foolish. (Above link isn't direct to YouTube as I can't access it from the office).

Here is an idea to stop global warming!

1.900 ships sailing around the world to create clouds! It will cost about 10 billion dollars.

Basically I think it is a bad idea because it is treating the symptoms and not the disease. But apparently it should be possible according to a the Danish newspaper "Jyllandsposten". However there is a severe risk that manipulating the climate by creating more clouds might have some unpredictable side effects.

(Link to article It is in Danish, so you probably can't read it, but taking a picture from somewhere at least I can make a link to the original page to give them credit for it.)

That's a creative idea. If they did that off the Pacific coast of the U.S., my city would probably be unbearable. The heat and humidity would rot the desert vegetation, and the combination of year-round heat and humidity would make me move some place cooler or drier.

I was listening to a bunch of science podcasts while driving yesterday. One of them was discussing China's official plans for reducing greenhouse gasses.

Those who complain that the U.S. shouldn't do anything unless China does something first have to find a new argument. The plan may or may not be good, but the Chinese have a plan.