• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An expert explains why we are where we are with AGW alarmism today

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,256
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated

youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI

Stand by for the torrent of hysteria and abuse this guy now gets for using common sense and stating the obvious 🥺
 
Last edited:

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
34,911
Reaction score
11,303
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated

youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI

Stand by for the torrent of hysteria and abuse this guy now gets for using common sense and stating the obvious 🥺
Richard Lindzen has always been a voice of reason in this discussion.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
20,972
Reaction score
7,432
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some voice of reason. His reasoning of climate change being of less impact has by his own admission included "some stupid mistakes" and "...just embarrassing.", the paper of which the National Academy of Science refused to publish. But he did get a Korean journal to publish his paper:

(see Climate sensitivity section, last para):

The fact is, though, Lindzen does accept the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. But then he also believes that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. I recommend he be taken with a grain of salt.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
34,911
Reaction score
11,303
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Some voice of reason. His reasoning of climate change being of less impact has by his own admission included "some stupid mistakes" and "...just embarrassing.", the paper of which the National Academy of Science refused to publish. But he did get a Korean journal to publish his paper:

(see Climate sensitivity section, last para):

The fact is, though, Lindzen does accept the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. But then he also believes that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. I recommend he be taken with a grain of salt.
If a person has over 200 per reviewed publication on the topic of climate, should one be surprised if there is a rejection in the group?
The fact remains that, the high feedback factors needed for a doubling of CO2 to be 3 C or higher, cannot be demonstrated with the observed temperature data!
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
6,424
Reaction score
6,974
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
If a person has over 200 per reviewed publication on the topic of climate, should one be surprised if there is a rejection in the group?
The fact remains that, the high feedback factors needed for a doubling of CO2 to be 3 C or higher, cannot be demonstrated with the observed temperature data!
Do you disagree with the IPCC report? That's like one of the largest collections of scientists we have on a single piece of climate change data.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
34,911
Reaction score
11,303
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you disagree with the IPCC report? That's like one of the largest collections of scientists we have on a single piece of climate change data.
I do not disagree with the supported data presented, but I do disagree with some of conclusions and predictions drawn from that data!
Let me give you an example, IPCC AR6 SPM
A.1.2 Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850.
Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84- 1.10] °C higher than 1850-1900 .
Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900,
This statement agrees well with the published temperature data sets, so there is nothing to disagree with.
But a statement like this, is unsupported.
A.4.4 The equilibrium climate sensitivity is an important quantity used to estimate how the climate responds to radiative forcing.
Based on multiple lines of evidence21, the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence).
The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C
If we take the data in the first statement, 1850–1900 to 2000-2011 had .99°C of observed warming.
The CO2 level in 2011 was 391.85 ppm, so 48% of the path to doubling the CO2 level was complete, by 2011.
and we have to account for the ~ 10 years of feedback, shown by the IPCC as total warming of .1°C between 2011 and 2020.
But we also have to subtract off the greenhouse gas forcing in that time window, NOAA AGGI
472 ppm CO2-eq to 504 ppm CO2-eq, or .105°C, But if the calculated forcing warming is greater than the observed warming, the only feedback that can do that is negative.
The idea that climate feedbacks will amplify the forcing warming to become much greater warming, cannot be demonstrated to get anywhere near the 3°C.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,256
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you disagree with the IPCC report? That's like one of the largest collections of scientists we have on a single piece of climate change data.

But he actually quoted the IPCC report in that .......

"The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

As he noted all the rest is just media and politically driven hysteria with little basis in reality but plenty to do with the cash it generates

The faux catastrophism agenda we a scaring our kids with is entirely without scientific foundation
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
34,911
Reaction score
11,303
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But he actually quoted the IPCC report in that .......

"The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

As he noted all the rest is just media and politically driven hysteria with little basis in reality but plenty to do with the cash it generates

The faux catastrophism agenda we a scaring our kids with is entirely without scientific foundation
In addition he was one of the lead authors on an earlier IPCC report, so the IPCC must have considered him a valid climate scientist!
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
6,424
Reaction score
6,974
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The idea that climate feedbacks will amplify the forcing warming to become much greater warming, cannot be demonstrated to get anywhere near the 3°C.
It seems like you are using a very narrow set of numbers to arrive at your conclusion. For example, here is a paper on the feedback caused JUST from permafrost:
For example, under a moderate emission
scenario (A1B), carbon emissions from soil and permafrost may in-crease by 30% by the end of the century when accounting for wildfire
compared to emissions from warming alone (9), and abrupt thawing
events may increase carbon emissions by 40% if current fossil fuel
emissions are not reduced (7).

But he actually quoted the IPCC report in that .......

"The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
The key part of that is climate states, which is not the same thing as making prediction about temperature increases.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
34,911
Reaction score
11,303
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems like you are using a very narrow set of numbers to arrive at your conclusion. For example, here is a paper on the feedback caused JUST from permafrost:



The key part of that is climate states, which is not the same thing as making prediction about temperature increases.
Projections and predictions are different than actual observed data!
The numbers are the globally average temperature data sets, HadCrut, GISS, BEST, ect.
All the predictions are based on this central idea that the CO2 forced warming will be amplified to be total warming.
So for example the forced warming from a doubling of the CO2 level is supposed to be ~1.1°C, and the total expected
warming from a doubling of the CO2 level as stated by the IPCC is 3°C.
This would set up a black box amplifier description, we may not know what goes on in the box, but with an input of
1.1°C and an output of 3°C, the box must have a feedback factor of 2.72, because 1.1 X 2.72 =2.99.
The latency between CO2 emission and maximum warming has been found to be about 10 years.
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
This time frame was validated by an additional Peer reviewed study
Herein lies the problem, that required feedback factor to get to 3°C (2.72)cannot be demonstrated in any of the global data sets.
Choose any years temperature as the input temperature, and the temperature 10 years later, less the forcing, cannot produce a feedback factor anywhere near high enough.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,256
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The key part of that is climate states, which is not the same thing as making prediction about temperature increases.

20 times more people die as a consequence of extreme cold than heat and global deaths from extreme climate and weather events are at an all time low. The Earth has gotten greener too over the last 40 years of satellite observation and crop yields have never been better. These are real world observations not the shonky climate model projections this whole AGW cash register depends on

Whats currently not to like ? 👍
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,256
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you disagree with the IPCC report? That's like one of the largest collections of scientists we have on a single piece of climate change data.

OK lets go with the IPCC report then. Where in the IPCC report does it say anything about net zero CO2 needing to be achieved by 2050 and that if we dont achieve it catastrophe awaits ?

I'd like to see the scientific basis for these often parrotted alarmist doomsday predictions in peer reviewed detail :)
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
51,911
Reaction score
15,889
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Some voice of reason. His reasoning of climate change being of less impact has by his own admission included "some stupid mistakes" and "...just embarrassing.", the paper of which the National Academy of Science refused to publish. But he did get a Korean journal to publish his paper:

(see Climate sensitivity section, last para):

The fact is, though, Lindzen does accept the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Yes, he takes a reasonable approach.
But then he also believes that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. I recommend he be taken with a grain of salt.
I couldn't find any of his quotes on that. I believe his view is on "second hand smoke." Not smoking. I could be wrong, but can you please find a credible source if you are going to contend that?
 

Germinator

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
360
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated

youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI

ya do realized AGW propaganda works two ways (i.e. there is a left and right side),...

Anthropogenic global warming theory

The anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) claims that human beings are responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age. The anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) claims that human beings are responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age. It is highly favored by liberals, as it provides justification for carbon taxes and the Kyoto Protocol.

...The AGW theory is one explanation for the 1.5 degrees F of warming of the air near the earth's surface recorded since 1850.[1] However, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said global warming is most likely a "natural phenomenon," because there is no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that "alarmism" is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies.[2]

https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory

let's consider,... the studies don't take the long term view (that magically kind stop),... in other words,.... RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5 - which are labelled after a possible range of radiative forcing values [THAT END???] in the year 2100 (2.6, 4.5, 6, and 8.5 W/m2, respectively)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787818/

simple truth is,... too few recognize the long terms dangers of burning various hydrocarbon fuels like: coal, methane, gas, diesel, etc.

basically burning stuff releases a greenhouse gas, that accumulates in the atmosphere

FYI a greenhouse gas (like CO2) traps infrared energy in the atmosphere (which is why the planet is warming up)

4x6-PC-01-combustion-reaction-CO2-diffusion.png


...since people all together burn about a 100 million barrels of oil a day (AND since there are 42 gals in a barrel of oil),... to measure the vast amounts of CO2 being put into the atmosphere, scientists use the unit measurement of a "gigaton" (which is the weight of a cubic kilometer of water)

4x6-PC-02-keeling-curve-june-2021.png


to grasp why man made climate change is a problem, ponder for a moment the first reported rain fall (on top of a mountain of ice) in the arctic region

since man made climate change skeptics use religion (in the debate) figure explaining the science in religious terms might get the message across

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/08/skeptical-uses-of-religion-in-debate-on-climate-change/

consider science tells us,... the arctic region since the time of Jesus, has been frozen solid

yet looking at the news and science journals we see a warming trend AND now there is rain falling in the arctic region

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/08/19/greenland-melt-august-summit-rain/

...just a wild guess but the shock and awe of scientists who first noticed rain falling on top of a mountain in the arctic circle,... is akin to the shock and awe of Moses who came upon a burning bush on top of a mountain

anyway if trends continue and the Greenland ice cap melts,... science indicates there will be a global flood sorta like as described in story of Noah

4x6-PC-rain-at-SUMMIT-STATION-a-snowball-s-chance-in-hell.png


looking at the long term orbital dynamics is revealing (IOW what is the path the earth takes over geological time)



at the present moment, science indicates the earth is ever so gradually moving away from the sun,... when the earth is further away from the sun, we expect the planet to ever so slightly cool down,... and yet scientists just observed rainfall in the arctic on top of a mountain of ice (which indicates the planet is warming up)

given the basic science I've laid out,... showing how the chemical combustion process dumps in measurable amounts of CO2 (which is a green house gas, that traps infrared energy),... and that the planet should be ever so gradually cooling down because it is moving away from the sun,... so what other "scientific" mechanism is out there that can cause rain to fall on top of a mountain of ice in the arctic circle (other than "yuge" amounts of man made CO2)???

 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,256
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ya do realized AGW propaganda works two ways (i.e. there is a left and right side),...
Ya do realize that the guy linked in the OP is one of the worlds leading atmospheric physicists with over 200+ published papers and 30 years teaching it at MIT

But what the hell would he know .... right ? :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,256
Reaction score
4,120
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, he takes a reasonable approach.

I couldn't find any of his quotes on that. I believe his view is on "second hand smoke." Not smoking. I could be wrong, but can you please find a credible source if you are going to contend that?
Yeah I'd like to see that too.

Just more smearing of academic dissent I suspect 🥺
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
51,911
Reaction score
15,889
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah I'd like to see that too.

Just more smearing of academic dissent I suspect 🥺
Yep.

Smear campaigns occur regularly when the facts don't work.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
51,911
Reaction score
15,889
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah I'd like to see that too.

Just more smearing of academic dissent I suspect 🥺
The only think I could find was him referring to "passive smoking" which is breathing in "second hand smoke."

These guys regularly lie. I'll bet nobody can find an actual quote saying he was casting doubt on smoking.
 

Threegoofs

російський військовий корабель іди на хуй
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
57,243
Reaction score
22,479
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In addition he was one of the lead authors on an earlier IPCC report, so the IPCC must have considered him a valid climate scientist!
He was.

Then he retired, and went bonkers, scientifically. He garners very little respect in the scientific community. I mean… he’s on the board of Heartland, which is widely considered a complete joke by all legitimate scientists in the field.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
13,802
Reaction score
5,963
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated

youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI

Stand by for the torrent of hysteria and abuse this guy now gets for using common sense and stating the obvious 🥺
The first issue is your source. PragerU is not a credible source. I have no issues with Richard Lindzen, other than appearing in a YouTube video that has no credibility. Which in return damages his credibility. He would have been better served to simply make the video under his own name.

The second issue is his "Group 1" in which he claims are "scientists with the International Panel on Climate Change." When in reality it it is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and consists entirely of politicians, not scientists.

The third issue is the amount of temperature change since 1880. According to NASA's GISS data the mean temperature increase between 1880 and 2011 is only 0.51°C (0.936°F) which is half of what he is claiming because he is getting his misinformation from the extremely leftist and highly political IPCC.

NASA GISS.jpg
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
4,183
Reaction score
839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated

youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI

Stand by for the torrent of hysteria and abuse this guy now gets for using common sense and stating the obvious
I could see that this was denialist misinformation 20 seconds into it with the cherry-picked temp data that completely left out the last four years of record temps. And much of the rest of it is old and no longer thought to be true.
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
4,183
Reaction score
839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The fact remains that, the high feedback factors needed for a doubling of CO2 to be 3 C or higher, cannot be demonstrated with the observed temperature data!
This is a lie.
I do not disagree with the supported data presented, but I do disagree with some of conclusions and predictions drawn from that data!
Let me give you an example, IPCC AR6 SPM

This statement agrees well with the published temperature data sets, so there is nothing to disagree with.
But a statement like this, is unsupported.

If we take the data in the first statement, 1850–1900 to 2000-2011 had .99°C of observed warming.
The CO2 level in 2011 was 391.85 ppm, so 48% of the path to doubling the CO2 level was complete, by 2011.
and we have to account for the ~ 10 years of feedback, shown by the IPCC as total warming of .1°C between 2011 and 2020.
But we also have to subtract off the greenhouse gas forcing in that time window, NOAA AGGI
472 ppm CO2-eq to 504 ppm CO2-eq, or .105°C, But if the calculated forcing warming is greater than the observed warming, the only feedback that can do that is negative.
The idea that climate feedbacks will amplify the forcing warming to become much greater warming, cannot be demonstrated to get anywhere near the 3°C.
And this is even more denialist BS!! Long is ignoring aerosols again. And when one does calculations like this you have to take into account the cooling from aerosols or you will make the warming from GHGs look smaller than they really are.

Seriously, long... this intellectual dishonesty from you is getting really old.
 
Top Bottom