MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people realize that this is a phony issue’
Dr. Richard Lindzen: The time history of such matters as droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and temperature extremes is well recorded by official bodies like NOAA, and display no systematic increase. Indeed, some, like hurricanes, appear to be decreasing. These trends have been documented by R. Pielke, Jr., and even the IPCC has acknowledged the absence of significant associations with warming.
The attempt to associate present weather extremes and other matters ranging from obesity to the Syrian Civil War, with climate change is frequently hilarious.
Sea levels: “Carefully analyzed tide gauge data shows sea-level increasing about 20 cm per century for at least 2 centuries – with no sign of acceleration to the present. The claim that this increase is accelerating is very peculiar. Tide gauges don’t actually measure sea-level. Rather, they measure the difference between land level and sea level. At many stations, the former is much more important. In order to estimate sea level, one has to restrict oneself to tectonically stable sites. Since 1979 we have been able to measure sea level itself with satellites. However, the accuracy of such measurements depends critically on such factors as the precise shape of the earth. While the satellites show slightly greater rates of sea level rise, the inaccuracy of the measurement renders the difference uncertain. What the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979, but assume that the satellite data is correct after that date and that the difference in rates constitutes ‘acceleration.’ They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.”
“According to the IPCC, models find that there is nothing competitive with man-made climate change, but observations contradict this. The warming from 1919-1939 was almost identical to the warming from 1978-1998. Moreover, there was an almost total slowdown of warming since 1998. Both imply that there is something at least as strong as man-made warming going on.”
Read more at www.climatedepot.com
Trackback from your site.
JungleDrums
| #
Richard Lindzen promotes the back radiative greenhouse as fact – http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/198_greenhouse.pdf.
He has previously claimed that people who question the back radiative greenhouse are making skeptics look bad.
IF you acknowledge the IPCC’s science is based on sound principles then you explicitly acknowledge that their “scenarios” are not only possible BUT PROBABLE !
I reject the whole nonsense.
Reply
Stephen Lindsay-Yule
| #
The longwave radiation leaves TOA at the same rate as solar radiation recieved. That’s because of the infrared window which has a range of frequencies and wavelengths that prevents absorbers absorbing longwave radiation. Example CO2 absorbs/emits outside that range at a lower energy longwave radiation below gas state. And much shorter wavelength radiation outside the atmospheric window that could only come from low energy Solar radiation. In fact these transitions occur in the mesosphere and not near the surface. Air molecules heat through surface conduction then rise releasing energy as it expands without adding heat and making surrounding air do work. Air that sinks will compress under pressure are gain heat through increased motion. Certain high frequency radiation cannot penetrate water so return to earth under clouds. All molecules emit radiation. That is your only proof of back radiation and not the IPCC version.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
SLY:
Certain high frequency radiation cannot penetrate water so return to earth under clouds. All molecules emit radiation. That is your only proof of back radiation and not the IPCC version.
JMcG:
Right. IOW, all of this is much ado about very little.
And the vast majority of people that get involved in this whole argument do so for reasons that are political and not scientific. That is true both for the alarmists and the skeptics.
All of the geographic sciences are confounded by dumbed down models that everybody pretends to understand. (And that is everybody–not just the politically motivated nitwits that dominate all discussion.)
The truth is that the underlying agenda of these models is to placate and confuse the public for funding purposes. This is the case in all of the geographic sciences, not just climatology.
In all of the geographic sciences all of the “experts” pretend to understand models that have been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the taxpaying public.
The greater fraud here is much bigger and has been going on for much longer than global warming.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Stephen Lindsay-Yule
| #
The detection of the greenhouse effect depends on global average temperature rising in line with CO2. 1979 CO2 was 330ppm its now peaked this year at 410 80ppm and the rise has been 0.3C(satellite data), 0.00375 per ppm. It’s political to say vast majority, biased surveys prove nothing. The scientific method involves making conjectures(guesses) so far there guesses have proven to be wrong. Yet they set standards and policies on those guesses and not consider being wrong. That’s political. And because its political not all agencies have the same global average temperature. In fact because they made it political, data is rewritten to prove their guesses are right.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
SL-Y:
” . . . guesses have proven to be wrong. Yet they set standards and policies on those guesses and will not consider being wrong. That’s political. And because its political not all agencies have the same global average temperature. In fact because they made it political, data is rewritten to prove their guesses are right.”
JMcG:
I agree with everything you are saying except the phrase, ” . . . they made it political . . .” This is mistaken. They did not make it political. It has always been political. It didn’t start with climatology or global warming. It has been with us all along in that meteorology has long employed the same pseudoscientific methods with its prevailing theory of storms, the convection model of storm theory.
I suggest you read the following thread in its entirely, all the way up to the most recent post which I posted today. I think you can appreciate that the problem is much larger and much more entrenched in our collective minds than has previously been considered.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply