Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

[Admin]

Meet MIT's Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist:
http://news360.com/article/217983805

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

[berkshireskier]

Meet MIT's Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist:
http://news360.com/article/217983805

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

Yes, I read this story yesterday. Very interesting viewpoint on the whole debate over "manmade" global warming. Despite what Al Gore says, there are legitimate, credentialed climate scientists who do have a somewhat opposing viewpoint on how much human activity is affecting and changing the worldwide climate. Of course, it may be impossible to definitely, 100% solve the argument. They reality, as professor Lindzen notes, is probably that there are many factors, some human caused and others occurring naturally, that affect the climate over periods of time.

[Tony Crocker]

Many interesting points in that article.

With regard to the science, some of the points that have been discussed here:
1) The greenhouse effect of CO2 is "settled science," but
2) Climate sensitivity of the CO2, the impact of clouds and water vapor, is not.

And of course the elephant in the room, the failure of the climate models to project the past 15 years of flat temperatures.

The Summary IPCC Report circulated to the politicians expresses strong confidence in the climate projections. The detail report by the scientists evidently expresses much more uncertainty. This squares with a survey I've read of British, Canadian, American and German scientists. Strong majorities (but not the 97% number we often see) agree that temperature increases since 1950 are mostly manmade and that we can expect future increases with ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is weak confidence in how much future temperatures might increase and little confidence upon projections at the regional level or in projected changes in precipitation.

And finally, AGW advocates often point to the "straw men" who oppose climate change initiatives. Opponents are routinely characterized as :
1) Beholden to the oil and coal industries
2) Religious fundamentalists, or
3) "Tea Partiers" who believe it's all a vast socialist plot.
By focusing upon the "yahoos" among the skeptics, AGW advocates duck addressing the serious scientific questions. Patrick???

[SnowbirdDevotee]

re above: 3) "Tea Partiers" who believe it's all a vast socialist plot.
It's all a socialist plot, invented by them to take our money and it has worked quite well. We can blame the Climate Change SCAM all on George Bush. Yes, truly Blame it on Bush. The Iraq invasion was based on false information and lies. And it didn't work out so well. Actually I honestly think Bush & Co never imagined how bad it would turn out. This mistake fanned the leftist flames and turned many on the right to the left. I myself changed to Dem for a couple of years. I would rather socialism than our country as a imperialist power. Socialism is safer for our society and cheaper too.

And that is why this is such an issue where opinions are divided quite sharply along political line. Lefties can't believe in their wildest imagination, that thousands of scientists, tens of thousands(maybe millions) of teachers around the globe, most major media outlets and basically all the sources they consider as the "good people" are either completely wrong or as far as the scientists go, lying, perverting and twisting data and science for their own benefit. And that they are. It is a VAST SOCIALIST PLOT! to put so much emphasis on 1 part in 20,000 parts of the atmosphere changing to CO2, and a step change in global temperature changes that occurred during the extraordinary 1998 El Nino. Realize the satellites show no real warming from when they went up in 1977 to 1997.

US winter temperatures since 2000.
[img]

idiots.png

[/img]
I plotted it here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
And of course it does not include this winter, which is going to decrease the trend sharply.

[Tony Crocker]

1 part in 20,000 parts of the atmosphere changing to CO2

This is a "yahoo" argument. I suspect 1 part in 20,000 of cyanide in the atmosphere would kill a lot of people in a short period of time. There's nothing unreasonable to hypothesize that a very small change in a gas concentration might impact climate significantly. The problem is that the actual weather data does not support the level of climate sensitivity to CO2 that is assumed in the computer projection models.

[rfarren]

US winter temperatures since 2000.
[img]

idiots.png

[/img]
I plotted it here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
And of course it does not include this winter, which is going to decrease the trend sharply.

It's silly to use a graph showing US winter temperatures to refute "global" climate change. Not merely does that graph not show global temperatures, it only shows 1/4 of the year on less than 10% of the global surface.

I think it's reasonable to suspect that 7 billion humans can collectively affect the climate to some degree. I doubt it's as drastic as what IPCC has predicted it will be. I'm sure there are other factors that have yet to be honed when it comes to climate predictions.

That being said, your rant was awesome,... somewhat akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "na na na ... I'm not listening". It's brilliant, and I encourage you to continue to do more rants.

[Tony Crocker]

Yahoo arguments do not help the cause of trying to inject some sanity into this topic. They just create an easy straw man target for groupthink politicians and scientists to debunk instead of facing the hard questions.

[rfarren]

Yahoo arguments do not help the cause of trying to inject some sanity into this topic. They just create an easy straw man target for groupthink politicians and scientists to debunk instead of facing the hard questions.

I second that.

[SnowbirdDevotee]

re: Yahoo about 1 in 20,000 parts changing to CO2.
Yes & No.
Yes, a 1/20,000 mixture of cyanide would likely kill you.
First - most people have no idea whatsoever that the CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere is not really changing it except on a miniscule scale. (let's exclude particle pollution, completely different topic).
the 1/20,000 I am referring to is, w/o looking it up right now, is the CO2 ppm from about 330 to 380. 50/1,000,000. CO2 is about 400ppm but there has been no warming since 1997 and there was no human caused warming from 290-300. 290 was when "things were perfect" back in 1880.
So do any of those other 20,000 parts matter? No, the "scientists" would tell you the 19,999 parts were in perfect equilibrium before 1880. At the end of the LIA, when the climate was just right. Water vapor is not well-mixed and by many accounts is the dominant greenhouse gas. The number i get is worldwide it averages about 1-2%. Let's say 150 parts per 20,000 is water vapor. The physics of the absorption bands of CO2 vs Water Vapor is beyond us non-physicists. But I have read many articles which discuss the lab experiments that show the overwhelming abundance of water vapor dominants the greenhouse effect because it is present at an ave of 15,000 ppm(1.5%) vs 400 ppm or it is concentration is about 400x of CO2. There are also many other "problems". The CO2 greenhouse effect apparently had already become "saturated" at a lower concentration. And adding more, does nothing. Of course even the greenhouse theory may be a invalid theory in itself. Meaning, that is not how our planet is kept warmer than space. I don't know, there are physicists and scientists who believe the greenhouse theory to be invalid, but they are in the minority. I have no opinion and that science is too complex for a laymen to even ponder what's true.
So yes, 1/20,000 can make a difference in a lot of things. But likely it makes a very, very tiny difference when you consider the many other factors. The #1 fact is the preponderance of El Nino's from late 1970's through 1998. Certainly they had an effect. Other huge factors are even the IPCC carbon cycle graphs show that only 3% of CO2 "emissions" are from humans. 97% are from the oceans, land use changes, decomposition and other natural factors that have absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuels. And the biggest factor of all are ocean cycles which absolutely dominant changes in climate on a decadal scale. Then add the sun (controversial), planetary alignment, changes in magnetic poles of the earth, possible changes in orbit or rotation of earth, even cosmic rays. Oh, and I forget to add another really BIGGIE - Clouds. Roy Spencer says a 1% decrease in cloud cover may have caused this "great warming". Oh and add ocean salinity too to the mess. They all may?? have an effect. No one really knows.
.
So NO, it is extremely, extremely doubtful that a 1/20,000 change in the atmosphere has anything or at most very little to do with temperature change. And the 1/20,000 i'm cherry picking. But the early 20th warming, although taken as human caused global warming, is accepted as likely to be due to changes in solar irradiance. Even what i consider the "quacks" don't blame global warming on humans before 1960. Of course, many believe that ALL Climate Change is caused by humans, golly, they even adopted the word.
So the more one looks into the this, the more insignificant and unlikely that 1 in 20,000 parts of the atmosphere changing to CO2 has anything to do about anything. Saying, that, the YES of the Yahoo, apparently it makes the marijuana grow better.

[socal]

Right....yahoo.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[rfarren]

Co2 isn't the only greenhouse gas being blamed for AGW.

I think it's a rational assumption that 7 billion humans can collectively affect the global climate. Humans have been changing their surroundings (local environs) for thousands years. This is a young science, so I would imagine that the variables behind the main drivers in climate flux aren't fully understood (as exemplified by faulty computer models) but simply saying that human activity doesn't affect the climate is ignoring human history.

Furthermore, a simple class in chemistry can show quite amply how a 1/20,000 (or less) change in "environment" can have a drastic change to overall reactivity.

[Tony Crocker]

Furthermore, a simple class in chemistry can show quite amply how a 1/20,000 (or less) change in "environment" can have a drastic change to overall reactivity.

Yes, the 1/20,000 could have significant impact, and viewed in isolation that's why CO2 effect was proposed as early as the 1930's. Interestingly, the crude estimates done then are more accurate than the current computer models full of questionable feedback assumptions.

SnowbirdDevotee's other points about water vapor, clouds and theorized CO2 saturation are all areas where much scientific research needs to be done.

[rfarren]

SnowbirdDevotee's other points about water vapor, clouds and theorized CO2 saturation are all areas where much scientific research needs to be done.

Yes. I agree fully.

Check out this video though, it's pretty horrifying.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/01/31/268356264/a-hunk-of-planet-dissolves-before-our-eyes

[SnowbirdDevotee]

>Check out this video though, it's pretty horrifying.
rfarren, seems like you don't understand glaciers very well. it's absurd that this would horrify anyone in reference to "climate change". I would only be horrified if I happened to be anywhere nearby in a boat.

Show me a glacier receding and I'll allow you to be be horrified. But the reason a glacier calves is because it is growing and pushing out into the sea. That's because of eons of snowfall accumulating above and slowing sliding down. I guess? if temperatures rose so dramatically that the snout of the glacier was prematurely weakening and melting, that could be the result of runaway global warming. Anyone being horrified at this video is a just an other example of how brainwashed our scientists and other busy-bodies have made us. Pretty much anything happening in the natural world is now an example of "climate change". (another word that is now culturally defined in a very idiotic context that any change is climate is obviously from man emissions)

But the average temp rise is only a degree or two in most places, not enough to cause any horrifying glacier scenes. If you live in snow country, take a look outside at the settled snow and compare it to the snow in Dec/Jan. What you see is that it is melting, even at 32F. Sunlight is very likely much more of a factor in glacier melt this past century rather than a 1.5F temp rise. Less cloud = more sunlight. Glaciers melt.
Here is an article saying cloud cover has decreased since 1987. First graph in link below. Before that is anyone's guess.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/oce ... n-heating/

We should have scientists who try to figure things out and look at these complex factors in a sensible fashion. Our scientists have become aligned with politicians and industry to fleece our citizens in the biggest SCAM in history. Many of the "good people" in this world think that we have "good people" figuring things out. All they care about is money, getting your money, literally stealing it and giving you absolutely nothing in return. NOTHING! but a dream and a religion that you can feel good about.
Sadly, all most scientists care is 1 in 20,000 parts of the atmosphere changing to CO2 because that's where the money is, and humans may have absolutely nothing to do even with that change, because the natural CO2 cycle so overwhelms any influence we might have.

My study of Climate Change is a study in human nature, the consensus viewpoint has very little to do with science.

Anyway! My stuff is in the garage waiting to be loaded and i am SLC bound!!!!

[rfarren]

>Check out this video though, it's pretty horrifying.
rfarren, seems like you don't understand glaciers very well. it's absurd that this would horrify anyone in reference to "climate change". I would only be horrified if I happened to be anywhere nearby in a boat.

Oh...i've been on quite a few glaciers, and seen them calve from boats too.

The horrifying element is the speed and acceleration at which those glaciers have receded over the last 10 years. When I hiked piz bernina in swizterland one of the fascinating elements was how far the glacier had receded in the previous 5 years compared to the 100 years preceding it. It would seem to me that glacial recession there was indeed accelerating... That doesn't line up well with what the climate has done in the past ten years, but tipping points can be tricky things to understand.