Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Quiggin (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 13 December 2009 (rv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He was one of ten lead authors working under the co-ordinating lead author Thomas Stocker on Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. Describing himself as a global warming "denier" rather than a skeptic, he has been a critic of some global warming theories and what he states are political pressures on climate scientists.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere. This hypothesis, generally rejected, suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO₂ warming by lowering the climate sensitivity.

Career

Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.. He has published little on climate change ; of that, most notably on the iris hypothesis. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. Educated at Harvard University (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60), he moved to MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964–1965), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965–1966), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966–1967), University of Chicago (1968–1972) and Harvard University (1972–1983). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.

Awards and honors

Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Global warming

Climate change science

In 2001 Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel's report, entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, has been widely cited. Lindzen subsequently publicly criticized the report summary for leaving out doubts about the weight that could be placed on 20 years of temperature records. Gavin Schmidt has said that Lindzen agrees with about 90% of what other climate scientists are saying, yet the last 10% is sufficiently different to label him a contrarian.

IPCC activities

Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment." He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science" although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report but had been amended to state more definite conclusions. He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone. However, the NAS panel on which Lindzen served (see above) disagreed, saying that the summary was the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers.

Media appearances

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times. In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis.

The New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick is." Stephen Schneider of Stanford University criticized Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity (the global mean temperature increase associated with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations), arguing that it was too specific given the available evidence. Lindzen's reply to this was that he had at least given reasons for his estimate, rather than following the "herd instinct" common in science.

In June 2001, Lindzen wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, stating that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" and "I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions." In July, Lindzen was interviewed by Fred Guterl for Newsweek. Other experts also contributed to the article. Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models were inadequate and had not improved. Guterl wrote that despite the accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid. Lindzen gave an estimate of the Earth's climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree Celsius. Lindzen based this estimate on how the climate had responded to volcanic eruptions. James Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimated a climate sensitivity of 3–4 degrees Celsius. Hansen based this estimate on evidence from ice cores. According to Hansen: "Dick's idea that climate sensitivity is low is simply wrong, The history of the earth proves him wrong." John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, took the view that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut. When asked about Lindzen, Schellnhuber said "People like him are very useful in finding the weak links in our thinking."

In September 2003 Lindzen wrote an open letter to the mayor of his home town, Newton, Massachusetts, his views on global warming and the Kyoto Accord, in which he stated, "... he impact of CO₂ on the Earth's heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO₂ has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO₂ and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO₂, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2–3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so—about 1 degree F—is due to added greenhouse gases—a very implausible assumption)."

The November 10 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree. Lindzen's final proposal was a bet that if the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C and 0.4 °C the bet would be off, and if the temperature change were 0.4 °C or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds.

Of the Kyoto Accord, he claims there is no "controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO₂. Capping CO₂ emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO₂ levels."

He frequently speaks out against the IPCC position that significant global warming is very likely caused by humans (see global warming) although he accepts that the warming has occurred, saying global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. A Spiegel article on the 2007 IPCC Working Group I report included a discussion of Lindzen's critical views on the IPCC. The writer of article Uwe Buse concluded "Lindzen's arguments sound convincing, but they are still nothing but claims, popular theories as opposed to a transparent global process , a global plebiscite among climate researchers."

Lindzen was one of several scientists who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that aired in the UK in March, 2007 on Channel 4. In a critical review of the documentary, Barry Brook stated "Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise)."

Contrarianism

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian. Former student Daniel Kirk-Davidoff argued that this encourages him to choose a stance counter to consensus views, saying that “If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don’t always agree with the consensus. You show you’re right and everyone else is wrong ... He certainly enjoys showing he’s right and everyone else is wrong."

This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.

Critics have used Lindzen's contrarian views on tobacco smoking to argue that his similarly contrarian position on climate change should not be accorded credibility. On the other hand, advocates of scepticism with respect to the health risks of smoking have pointed to Lindzen's position on climate change as evidence against reliance on the findings of mainstream scientific organizations.

Expert witness fees and expenses

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC." However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since. Juliet Eilperin is of the opinion that "While Lindzen did accept the expenses, this doesn't mean he's on anybody's payroll. He charges for his speeches, but so do prominent scientists who disagree with him about climate change." Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander" and as "libelous."

Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

See also

• Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

References

1. "Curriculum Vitae of Richard Siegmund Lindzen" (PDF). Retrieved 16 June 2009.
2. "Richard Lindzen:Global Warming Denier". audio.wrko.com. Retrieved 2009-12-07. {{cite web}}: Text "WRKO" ignored (help)
3. Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris?" (PDF). Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417–432. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. "Publications". Retrieved 2007-04-05.
5. Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001). "Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris?" (PDF). Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82: 417–432. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. "Curriculum Vitae, Richard Siegmund Lindzen" (PDF). June 1, 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-18.
7. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions: Committee on the Science of Climate Change". National Academies Press. 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
8. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions". National Academies Press. 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
9. ^ Lindzen, Richard S. (June 11, 2001). "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty" (PDF). The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
10. "An MIT climatologist's quixotic struggle against global warming science: The Contrarian". Seed magazine. August 24, 2006.
11. ^ Lindzen, Richard S. (February 23, 2004). "Canadian Reactions To Sir David King". The Hill Times. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
12. Lindzen, Richard S. (May 1, 2001). "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee" (PDF). Lavoisier Group. Retrieved 18th March, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
13. Solomon, Lawrence (December 22, 2006). "The Deniers – Part V: The original denier: into the cold". National Post. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
14. The NAS panel said on the matter that "The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on the document. Written responses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact."
15. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions: Summary". National Academies Press. 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
16. Stevens, W. (June 18, 1996). "SCIENTIST AT WORK: Richard S. Lindzen;A Skeptic Asks, Is It Getting Hotter, Or Is It Just the Computer Model?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-26.
17. ^ Guterl, F. (July 23, 2001). "The Truth About Global Warming". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-07-26.
18. TCS Daily : Technology – Commerce – Society
19. Bailey, Ronald (November 10, 2005). "Two Sides to Global Warming". Reason Magazine. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
20. Bailey, Ronald (June 8, 2005). "Betting on Climate Change". Reason Magazine. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
21. Lindzen, Dr. Richard (09/17/2003). "A Mayor Mistake". TCS (Tech Central Station). Retrieved 2009-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
22. Buse, U. Translated from the German by C. Sultan (05/03/2007). "Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science?". Spiegel Online International. Retrieved 2009-07-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
23. "Don't be swindled – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)".
24. ^ Eilperin, Juliet (October, 2009). "Richard Lindzen: An Inconvenient Expert". Outside. Retrieved December 8, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
25. Achenbach, Joel (June 5, 2006). "Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away". The Seattle Times. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
26. Stolz, Kit (April 13, 2007). "For shame!". Grist. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
27. "The Contrarian". Seed. August 24, 2006. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
28. Guterl, Fred (July 23, 2001). "The Truth About Global Warming". Newsweek. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
29. Williams, Robyn (2005). "Fair-weather friends?" (PDF). Griffith Review (12).
30. Hyde, David (June 22, 2005). "Getting to the bottom of climate-change lingo". Grist. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
31. Harrop, Froma (November 28, 2009). "Whom Can You Trust on Climate Change?". Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
32. "Collection of Important and Historical Documents, and Great Speeches". International Liberty News Network. FORCES International. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
33. Template:Cite article
34. Ross Gelbspan (December, 1995). "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper's Magazine. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
35. ^ Oriana Zill de Granados. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
36. Alex Beam (30 August 2006). "MIT's inconvenient scientist". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 17 March 2009.
37. Lindzen, R.S. (2009). "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" (PDF). arXiv. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) See page 14.
38. Lindzen, Richard (April 12, 2006). "Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-08-08.

External links

• Richard Lindzen's Home page at MIT
• A List of Publications
• Profile at Physics World
• Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 2001

• American physicists
• Environmental skepticism
• Harvard University alumni
• Members of the National Academy of Sciences
• Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American meteorologists
• 1940 births
• Living people
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty
• Climatologists