takes care of itself: He suggests that columns of tropical cumulus convection intensify if carbon dioxide increases, piping energy high into the atmosphere, where the heat would be radiated to space. This mechanism, he suggests, is nature’s thermostat, which keeps global warming at a few tenths of a degree for doubled carbon dioxide, rather than a few degrees.
Charney would understand very well that if the real world possesses such a negative feedback, its effect is included in the empirical sensitivity extracted from Earth’s paleoclimate history. A reliable, accurate evaluation of climate sensitivity now exists, including all feedbacks. Is Lindzen likely to admit that he’s wrong? Probably not. I expect him to keep asserting that human-made climate change is unimportant on his deathbed, defending that position as a lawyer defends a client. A lawyer does not seek truth; a lawyer seeks a win for a client. That approach makes it difficult for the public. Lindzen makes qualitative statements that sound reasonable, and he raises technical matters that a layperson cannot assess, making it sound like there is an argument among theorists.
Abraham Lincoln, as I have noted, established the National Academy of Sciences for the purpose of providing advice on technical matters. President Bush, early in his first term, asked the academy for advice on global warming. Specifically, the White House sought the academy’s evaluation of the conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, in its most recent report, made increasingly strong statements about the likely consequences of continued increases of greenhouse gases. The White House was probably hoping that the academy would document some criticisms of the IPCC report. If so, the White House was disappointed. The academy’s evaluation had only mild reservations, giving the conclusions of IPCC strong endorsement overall.
Lindzen, though, had an explanation for the academy report. His talk at the White House was titled “Getting Serious About Global Warming.” His first chart, titled “The UC Irvine Atmospheric Chemist Gambit,” claimed that Ralph Cicerone and Sherwood Rowland had inserted an “irrelevant opener” into the executive summary of the academy report after the text of the report itself had been agreed to by all participants. Cicerone was chairman of the committee, Rowland was one of the principal authors, and Lindzen and I were two of the other nine committee members.
Cicerone is one of the most respected scientists in the United States and is now president of the National Academy of Sciences. Rowland won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, with Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen, for his prediction that chlorofluorocarbons could destroy stratospheric ozone. Rowland’s prediction was validated by nature with the appearance of the Antarctic ozone hole. Because of the warning issued by these scientists, the heavily populated northern hemisphere was largely spared the consequences of ozone depletion.
The paragraph that Lindzen objected to, the first paragraph of the executive summary, reads:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.
Lindzen’s charge—that changes
Charney would understand very well that if the real world possesses such a negative feedback, its effect is included in the empirical sensitivity extracted from Earth’s paleoclimate history. A reliable, accurate evaluation of climate sensitivity now exists, including all feedbacks. Is Lindzen likely to admit that he’s wrong? Probably not. I expect him to keep asserting that human-made climate change is unimportant on his deathbed, defending that position as a lawyer defends a client. A lawyer does not seek truth; a lawyer seeks a win for a client. That approach makes it difficult for the public. Lindzen makes qualitative statements that sound reasonable, and he raises technical matters that a layperson cannot assess, making it sound like there is an argument among theorists.
Abraham Lincoln, as I have noted, established the National Academy of Sciences for the purpose of providing advice on technical matters. President Bush, early in his first term, asked the academy for advice on global warming. Specifically, the White House sought the academy’s evaluation of the conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, in its most recent report, made increasingly strong statements about the likely consequences of continued increases of greenhouse gases. The White House was probably hoping that the academy would document some criticisms of the IPCC report. If so, the White House was disappointed. The academy’s evaluation had only mild reservations, giving the conclusions of IPCC strong endorsement overall.
Lindzen, though, had an explanation for the academy report. His talk at the White House was titled “Getting Serious About Global Warming.” His first chart, titled “The UC Irvine Atmospheric Chemist Gambit,” claimed that Ralph Cicerone and Sherwood Rowland had inserted an “irrelevant opener” into the executive summary of the academy report after the text of the report itself had been agreed to by all participants. Cicerone was chairman of the committee, Rowland was one of the principal authors, and Lindzen and I were two of the other nine committee members.
Cicerone is one of the most respected scientists in the United States and is now president of the National Academy of Sciences. Rowland won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, with Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen, for his prediction that chlorofluorocarbons could destroy stratospheric ozone. Rowland’s prediction was validated by nature with the appearance of the Antarctic ozone hole. Because of the warning issued by these scientists, the heavily populated northern hemisphere was largely spared the consequences of ozone depletion.
The paragraph that Lindzen objected to, the first paragraph of the executive summary, reads:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.
Lindzen’s charge—that changes
Similar Books
