Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 14

Great improvement

What a difference a week makes! I have been avoiding looking at this article because it was so awful but thanks to the recent edits, particularly Atmoz, it now looks like an encyclopedia article.Momento (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Atmoz has added the material that I wrote, of draft status, that we agreed was flawed and couldn't in principle be completed without help. I agree, it "looks" more like an encyclopaedia article. The writing is better (I mean, Atmoz has improved the wording in a number of points), but the question is, is it telling the story of Lindzen's intellectual history, or is it a better written story of something else? As the author of the material Atmoz has added, I happen to know it is flawed, and I have asked him, and others, not to add it, but to collaborate with me offline and complete it first. That's the way it should work (I believe). See WP:BLP, and note that "eventualism" is not supposed to apply to BLPs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs)

"that we agreed was flawed and couldn't in principle be completed without help" I never agree to either of those. Also, he never asked me not to add it, nor was I asked to collaborate offline. -Atmoz (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would rather have the current version with its flaws than last week's version which was abysmal. It was a sick article that needed immediate help. I particularly like the greatly reduced "Media" section and the "Early work" section. And even though it can be improved the basic structure is far superior to last week's. Momento (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I also appreciate the reduced "Media" section, although I can't in good conscience support this so-called "Early work" section that ends in ~ 1970. It should be called the, uh, "Very Early Work" section. And I think it's fair to say, as you said yourself, that there's no way it'll ever be completed. Its existence here helps now to perpetuate an illusion that Lindzen has done nothing since the early 1970s -- which is of course what many here would like the world to believe. Which is not to say I think that's why Atmoz himself put it there, but it's unfortunately the result. Indeed, I should never have put this online. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another improvement. Fill out the middle period and you're half way there. I've taken "skepticism" out of the "Global Warming" heading. Let the reader decide.Momento (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is wave-CISK?

Sure, I managed to work out that Lindzen's wave-CISK theory was historically important. I can tell you that CISK stands for "conditional instability of the second kind." If you can figure out what a single word of the either the CISK theory or Lindzen's wave-CISK hypothesis means, I'll write a new section. I'll give you a clue.

Conditional instability of the second kind—(Abbreviated CISK.) A process whereby low-level convergence in the wind field produces convection and cumulus formation, thereby releasing latent heat.

This enhances the convergence and further increases convection. The atmospheric environment that favors CISK is found over warm, tropical oceans where there is an abundant supply of moisture, the Coriolis force is small, and air convergence is strong.

Charney, J. G., and A. Elliasen, 1964: On the growth of the hurricane depression. J. Atmos. Sci., 21, 69–75.

Now, what the status of CISK itself is today, I couldn't tell you. Is it accepted as fact? Or is it, like most of meteorology, 45 years later still just conjecture? That's the Charney/Elliasen 1964 theory I'm talking about, by the way. Lindzen came along and proposed another theory dubbed "wave-CISK" but it goes without saying that you can't really make sense of that until you've got your head around the CISK of Charney/Elliasen. But it seems that this is what got Lindzen sucked in, and has something or other to do with why he is now one of the world's experts in cloud physics. That's presumably why he was made a lead author of the IPCC 2001 report, and got to collaborate with Ray Pierrehumbert, whom he later described as a "fanatical environmentalist." You know, just between you & me, I believe that in Lawrence Solomon's "Deniers" article (cited), it's actually Ray Pierrehumbert he was referring to who at one point gets asked by the IPCC leaders to show proof of his "green credentials". Read it, and read the Climategate letters. How's that for some interesting original research? You know, given how easy it was for me to get this totally flawed material into the article, I'm curious how much other stuff I could sneak in. Anyhow, back to CISK, I don't understand it. I'm never going to understand it. Therefore, I predict a section on it is not going to get written anytime soon. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a fact or a theory; it is a property of an air column. It is regarded as useful, still William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And what about Lindzen's 1974 work?

Lindzen (1974) Wave-CISK in the tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 156-179

Lindzen (1974) Wave-CISK and tropical spectra. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1447-1449

The second "notes & correspondence" paper is cited ~ 180 times in google scholar. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Bretherton 2000 review paper apparently:

The term CISK (Conditional Instability of the Second Kind) was introduced by Charney and Eliassen (1964) to describe a positive feedback between deep moist convection and a large-scale circulation. They hypothesized that hurricane intensication was such a process, in which surface friction helps induce low-level convergence into a vortex, resulting in deep convection and latent heating which amplies the vortex. Yamasaki (1969) and Hayashi (1970) rst considered the feedbacks between deep convection and largescale equatorial waves. In their models, convection could intensify (destabilize) the wave in some cases through purely inviscid processes not dependent on feedbacks with surface drag or surface thermodynamic uxes. Lindzen (1974) termed this destabilization wave-CISK, to distinguish it from Charney and Eliassen's frictional CISK, and put forth perhaps the most expansive view of the role of wave-CISK, implicating it in the development of tropical circulations.

Alex Harvey (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wave-CISK isn't Lindzen's theory. Yamasaki was the first to apply CISK to waves in 1969. Although Lindzen did greatly expand on it in 1974. To quote from Bretherton 2000 (not a review paper, it's a draft for the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, but I can't actually find it in the encyclopedia...), "Wave-CISK has proved a somewhat slippery hypothesis to test, and has largely fallen from favor among specialists in convective dynamics." B concludes, "neither observations nor current [2000] cloud-resolving numerical model simulations clearly show classical wave-CISK like modes. Furthermore, the theoretical models that predict wave-CISK are based on dubious parameterizations of cumulus convection.". I'll try to write up a paragraph on wave-CISK later this week, if you want. -Atmoz (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, where did you get that from? It's clear that Lindzen called it "wave-CISK" and it's obvious from google scholar that his papers are the ones that everyone discussed. It's less clear what Yamasaki's contribution was but I have no doubt it was important too. I am a little puzzled as to how you're going to manage to write this later in the week. Surely, it'd take you a few weeks just to even read the papers. Are you a specialist in this area? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes came from the "Bretherton 2000 review paper apparently" link you gave above. The bit about wave-CISK/Yamasaki/Lindzen did too. Tropical dynamics is not my thing, but I can talk to someone who's it is. -Atmoz (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought the document was behind a pay wall. I've got it now, though, and I'll have a read of it. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... Here is the first of your quotes in context:

Wave-CISK has proved a somewhat slippery hypothesis to test, and has largely fallen from favor among specialists in convective dynamics for reasons discussed below. However, it is a mode of instability permitted by many convective parameterizations, some used in climate models, so it can be a useful concept in interpreting model output even if physically dubious.

Your second quote is equally out of context, i.e. followed by a very big "however"... (It struck me as immediately odd that Bretherton would be dissing the idea of wave-CISK given his own role in its development...). I guess I'll have to read the paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither quote is out of context. -Atmoz (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, Atmoz... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex, this is fairly complex stuff and you need the help of someone like Atmoz if you are to understand it, and more than that to understand its current status. So you need to lay aside the combative attitude. If it helps, this is no part of the Great GW Wars at all. For my part, I misunderstood you, and thought you were talking about CISK not wave-CISK. I'm not familiar with w-C. However, wiki *should* have an article on CISK, so I've linked it (and the article, just in case Striving kicks in, doesn't need to mention w-C or L in the first instance) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

CISK now redirects to Convective instability which needs improvement William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

William, I appreciate the conciliatory input. I've read the Bretherton 2000 draft now, and I still don't think I'm going to understand much of this in the near or distant future. Bretherton's final message seems to be that the idea remains interesting, and certainly worthy of further investigation. I guess, I object somewhat to a focussing on whether or not the idea is "discredited" or not in the first place. Whether right or wrong, all ideas are valuable. An idea that was discussed in the literature for 30 years is an historically important idea. I'd be very careful in trying to say who should get credit for what exactly what in the story; you'll see even Yamasaki builds on earlier work of Lindzen & Holton, and I'm sure they all, at the end of the day, came up with these ideas together. At the least, it seems Lindzen should be credited with giving the phenomenon a name that stuck -- whether it's a real phenomenon or just an artifact of models. It also seems he proposed a number of interesting ways of testing/falsifying the theory, and I'd guess this is why his work was cited so many times. I'd say the section, if written, should include some treatment of the Lindzen 2003 paper there that may give his own current thinking on the matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

climate sensitivity

You have a link to climate sensitivity above a presentation of Lindzen's Iris hypothesis but the climate sensitivity article does not mention this hypothesis. Should we shift the link over to the Iris hypothesis article? TMLutas (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering about that. Seems like a good idea to me. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity is a broader topic than the iris. The iris hypothesis is also already linked. There's no need to link it twice so close together. If the climate sensitivity link isn't useful, just delete it. -Atmoz (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindzen 2003

This may be useful for anyone who tries to put wave-CISK into context of Lindzen's intellectual history.

3. Early approaches to the interaction of waves and cumulus convection

The initial approach to such waves was the so-called wave-CISK theories (Lindzen 1974b; Yamasaki 1969; Hayashi 1970). These followed the approach of Charney and Eliassen (1964) in assuming that, if a large-scale dynamic system could lift air to the lifting condensation level, then a cooperative interaction between convection and the large-scale disturbance could lead to the amplification of the disturbance. In the Charney–Eliassen version of CISK, the lifting was due to Ekman pumping, while in wave-CISK, the lifting comes from the wave field itself. Maximum lifting at the lifting condensation level implied an equivalent depth of 10 m (with a quarter wavelength corresponding to about 500 m). This led to the suggestion that a spectrum like that displayed in Kiladis and Wheeler (1999) should exist—though with a smaller equivalent depth (Lindzen 1974a).

In these early approaches, the cumulus mass flux was taken to be proportional to convergence at 500 m. However, the constant of proportionality was generally unknown. To remedy this, Cho and Ogura (1974) sought to determine with observations the relation between cumulus mass flux and vertical velocity at the lifting condensation level. They found that the cumulus mass flux was approximately 4 times the ambient vertical mass flux at the lifting condensation level. Although more recent discussions tend to ignore this, there was a substantial reassessment of wave-CISK over the following 5 yr. However, even in the 1960s, A. Eliassen (1975, personal communication) noted a basic problem with the very concept of CISK that was associated with his name: namely, that the lowest 2 km of the tropical atmosphere formed a turbulent trade wind boundary layer in which air was constantly being lifted above the lifting condensation level—even in the absence of any larger-scale system. In general, the breakout of deep convection is limited by the presence of a trade inversion (or more generally, the convective inhibition energy; Mapes 2000).

As noted by SL and Lindzen (1988), the ratio found by Cho and Ogura (1974) became unity if one considered ambient vertical mass flux at 2 km instead of 500 m. This led to an approach to cumulus parameterization wherein local cumulus mass flux was taken to be determined by evaporation and large-scale convergence within the trade wind boundary layer (Lindzen 1988; Geleyn et al. 1982). The resulting parameterization, modified for use with the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model, has come to be known as the Tiedke parameterization, though the parameterizations used by the ECMWF have evolved since. The geometry involved is schematically illustrated in Fig. 3. It was noted by SL that tropical waves were more nearly characterized by an equivalent depth of 30 m, which corresponded approximately to a vertical wavelength of 8 km, with a quarter wavelength (where one would expect a maximum in convergence) corresponding to the depth of the convective boundary layer (note that different papers associate the same vertical wavelengths with somewhat different equivalent depths because of the use of different basic-state Ts). Unfortunately, SL found that their interaction was unable to produce instability except for gravity waves corresponding to squall systems.

In Stevens et al. (1977), emphasis shifted from wave-CISK to a view of equilibrated waves whose convergence field below 2 km served to simply reorganize convection that would occur anyway. ... The work of SL already noted that wave-CISK really no longer worked with the mass budget parameterization.

Alex Harvey (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kyoto Accord section confusing

Some clarification is needed in the section "Kyoto Accord". It currently reads:

Although he accepts that the warming has occurred, he said in 2004 that "global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago".[45]

This seems to be a non sequitur. "Although" he accepts global warming, he says the Earth has warmed? If the implication here is that the 0.6 degree C temperature change is negligible, that suggestion is then negated by the next sentence, which states that the IPCC report says the same thing:

The IPCC Third Assessment report (2001) stated that there had been 0.6 °C (1.080 °F) warming in the previous century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Convit (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Smoking and Climate Change

Can someone explain how his views on smoking (contrarian, silly, or otherwise) have any insight into his climate work? It seems like a thinly-veiled attempt at undercutting his character without addressing the man himself. I think this section should be revisited. William (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks quite clearly like a weaselly ad hominem to me; smoking is currently reviled, so linking him to it is a way of undermining his personality in this article. It should be removed.82.71.30.178 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is still some gunk in this article. Does anyone watching object to a clean up some of this? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The references citing comments by Fred Guterl and Robyn Williams provide the context. From Guterl in NewsWeek: "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." But I agree that this is not a particularly important matter. Bright people often find their way to unfashionable opinions because they trust their own judgement. As Lindzen has as far as I'm aware never given a professional opinion on the link between tobacco and lung cancer I think it's somewhat peripheral. --TS 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally consider it relevant. Global warming has become the next big science denial battleground after smoke-related cancer. Researchers now know a lot about how the first was staged with the money of the tobacco industry. We even know that they were aware they couldn't prevent effective action against smoking completely, but merely tried to postpone it as long as possible. There is a great deal of overlap between the pro-industry "experts" and "research institutes" in the two areas, especially at the time when things were moving from smoking to climate. Under these circumstances a climate researcher's position on lung cancer is crucial for evaluating their scientific credibility.

The real question is whether this comes up often enough, or prominently enough, to justify inclusion, especially under BLP standards. Not having read the sources, I can't say anything about that. Hans Adler 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources draw a very weak link between Lindzen's views on smoking and lung cancer and his environmental contrarianism, but apparently he has not actually been involved in the tobacco denialist campaigns. --TS 14:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case I would actually see it as an indication that he is acting in good faith. But that seems very hard (probably impossible) to use in the article. Hans Adler 14:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, James Hansen, in Storms of my Grandchildren, p.15, says that Prof Lindzen "had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems." So I think it is quite relevant, not least given the well-documented links between the funding, strategies and personalities involved in the denial of smoking risks and the denial of climate risks, as traced by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in Merchants of Doubt. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be too keen on this, and there doesn't seem to be adequate justification for its inclusion, I've removed it. --TS 14:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This site http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#cite_note-10 talks about his funding with references. When talking about his stand on Climate change, I think it's relevant to talk about where he gets funding as its a conflict of interest. NagaSrinivas (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Kyoto

In [1] and [2] I removed two sentences about him agreeing that temps have risen 0.6 C over a century that didn't lead anywhere. Instead, I've completed the summary of the Mayer's Letter source to give the rest of L's view on Kyoto in the source. I imagine there are people out there who would disagree with L that Kyoto by itself would do 'virtual nothing' to combat global warming. As I think he's actually right about this, I'm having trouble finding sources on the other view. Can anyone help with this? I do want the section to be balanced. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine

I have not checked the content in question, but this edit's summary is problematic. It's not required that a source is conveniently available online. The original of the article is here, but behind a WP:PAYWALL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about paywalled sources, but that's not my concern here. (1) We would need to verify that this copy of the article is accurate. (2) Even if it is accurate, it does not support the claims made in the text I removed; in fact, it contradicts some of them. (3) A lot has happened in the debate since 1995, so we should use more recent sources. Cheers, CWC 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

NYT Mayday article

The New York Times published an article about Prof L on May 1st. All we say about it at present is

A May 1, 2012 New York Times article^{<ref>Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters April 30, 2012</ref>} said that Lindzen is "treated as a star" by skeptics of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change while being criticized by concerned scientists.

I tagged that with an {{expand section}} template, but since then I've noticed that Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has called the NYT article a "hit job", which makes me cautious about using it. Obviously, the headline is extremely silly, and the writer is clearly hostile to Prof L, but that doesn't necessarily stop us from using it, even in a BLP. (BTW: Via Pielke, I see that Andy Revin made a good point that might be relevant here: The Lindzen focus is a distraction, to my mind. Anyone thinking that the erosion of Lindzen’s credibility will somehow build societal enthusiasm for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is probably overly optimistic.)

What do other editors think? CWC 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations by anonymous IP

An IP editor, 99.181.148.240 , keeps trying to add material that violates WP:BLP. I've reverted same twice now. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New paper in JPANDS

I know it's not exactly Nature, but Lindzen has just published a paper in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative journal that is not indexed by PubMed. His commentary can be found here if you guys want to work it into the article. Jinkinson (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Third-party characterizations of Lindzen

This section draws heavily on third party references from individuals quoted in other publications such as the New York Times. It is inappropriate in a biography. The first paragraph starting with “…The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts…” is unacceptable. It is unsupported opinion by advocates having different viewpoints and opinions and is simply unacceptable in a Wiki biography. The New York Times, and especially Andy Revkin and Justin Gillis, are well known supporters of anything and everything coming out of the IPCC and the liberal political establishment in re to climate change. What Lindzen does say (correctly) and what is missing from all this is that the climate advocates are strongly motivated politically and this compromises their role as scientists...what does IPCC stand for … it stands for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. All of the pieces in the New York Times are favorable to the IPCC and so called “self appointed” consensus. There is a large group of scientists like myself who do not accept the IPCC / consensus story line which officially says (including in the AR5) that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change. One of the big weaknesses of the climate story line is verifiable attribution of cause and effect for manmade forcings. I, like Lindzen, accept the Arrhenius/Tyndall effect that says certain chemicals owing to their electronic structures trap infrared radiation and therefore promote warming. But there are other important forcings besides the GHGs, especially natural causes. Even the AR5 does not provide any reasonable explanation of the cause of the temperatures dropping over thirty years from the 1940s to 1970s and the current hiatus since 1997/1998. Including opinions whether or not they appear in mainstream publications like the New York Times is unacceptable … they have no place so just get them out of this Lindzen biography. That includes the entire paragraph that says “Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." Has been characterized by whom … and which graduate students – all of his graduate students over all time? This is nothing more than cherry picking statements out of the universe that support the writer’s objectives. I will follow this closely and if it not changed I will go ahead and make the change and followup to make sure that it gets corrected. This stuff should not be going on in Wiki.Danleywolfe (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not really read through the article in a long time. However the policy on Wikipedia is expressly to rely on as many reliable third party sources as possible (see WP:SOURCE). The point, of course, is to present the subject in proportion to the significance of the view, not in proportion to whether it is correct or not in our estimation. Wikipedia is not really the place for discussion about the correctness or flaws of the IPCC or Lindzen's views; we need to report on the general published and verifiable views. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Emeritus

Lindzen is no longer prof; he's Emeritus. And he's no longer APS prof. http://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)