- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 19,500
- Reaction score
- 5,458
- Location
- Wokingham, England
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Richard Lindzen has always been a voice of reason in this discussion.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
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?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.
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.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!
I do not disagree with the supported data presented, but I do disagree with some of conclusions and predictions drawn from that 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.
This statement agrees well with the published temperature data sets, so there is nothing to disagree with.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,
If we take the data in the first statement, 1850–1900 to 2000-2011 had .99°C of observed warming.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
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.
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!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
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 idea that climate feedbacks will amplify the forcing warming to become much greater warming, cannot be demonstrated to get anywhere near the 3°C.
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).
The key part of that is climate states, which is not the same thing as making prediction about temperature increases.But he actually quoted the IPCC report in that .......
"The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
Projections and predictions are different than actual observed data!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.
The key part of that is climate states, which is not the same thing as making prediction about temperature increases.
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.
Yes, he takes a reasonable approach.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.
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?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 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 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 MITya do realized AGW propaganda works two ways (i.e. there is a left and right side),...
Yeah I'd like to see that too.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?
Yep.Yeah I'd like to see that too.
Just more smearing of academic dissent I suspect
Richard Lindzen has always been a voice of reason in this discussion.
Follow the money!He simply asks the same searching questions of this narrative that I've wanted answered for many years
The only think I could find was him referring to "passive smoking" which is breathing in "second hand smoke."Yeah I'd like to see that too.
Just more smearing of academic dissent I suspect
Follow the money!
He was.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!
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.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.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
This is a lie.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!
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?