Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
greybeard said:
This link shows he did say what they claim.
Click to expand...

No, and that makes it even more obvious how wrong the blog is. SS says "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected", but what Lindzen says is

"According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man." (Richard Lindzen)

He is talking directly about projections by the IPCC, and according to their projections, their claims, there should be much more warming observed by now. That is a valid observation, it's not a myth.

They quote hi again, "the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2, and the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict"

Instead of arguing with that, they claim "it's a myth", which is as unscientific as you can get. Especially since "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" is about as true as one can state, when talking about the projections made by climate models and presented by the IPCC and others.

The alternative to this statement is "Earth has warmed as much as expected", which is simply not true, in regards to any of the climate models.

Which of course is exactly what SS does.
When we do the calculations and include all radiative forcings and the amount of heat being absorbed by the oceans, it shows that the Earth has warmed almost exactly as much as we would expect.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is obvious. They are comparing apples to oranges. What Lindzen is talking about is the claims by the IPCC, and what the models predicted. SS is, after the fact, changing things to say that now we would expect what we got. Both can't be true.

It's how they do things at the SS

If they simply stated what actually happened, they would be much better off.
 
greybeard said:
You need to look harder r-j. The evidence is their.
Click to expand...
I think you mean "there", which is still completely unhelpful. If there is evidence, just present it.

DC said:

and at 14:45 you can see Lindzen saying exactly what they quoted.
Click to expand...
Why would you lie about something so easy to check?
He never says "There's no tropospheric hot spot", which is exactly what SS quotes him as saying. And when they link from that claim, no mention of Lindzen at all.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm they do not even mention Lindzen.

The quote page has no quote about it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_quote.htm

DC said:
and at 14:45 you can see Lindzen saying exactly what they quoted.
Click to expand...
But you don't show us where. Where is the quote on the SS blog?

It's more misdirection and vague claims. If you have some evidence, present it clearly.

I easily showed you why I say that SS page is unscientific. They claim Lindzen has these "popular myths" he uses, but they show zero evidence to back up what they claim.
 
Now none of that means Lindzen isn't actually a tool of the devil, I mean, the fossil fuel cabal. In the video linked to above he says "supposed" when talking about the increase in CO2, which is quite enough to make him seem dishonest, and I question his motives.

Just because I find the SS repulsive, doesn't mean I don't agree with them at times.
 
r-j said:
There isn't a single link to any of the claims they make. The very first link goes to another SS page, which has a link to a blog http://sppiblog.org/news/yes-we-have-no-bananas But it does not contain what they say. None of them do...
Click to expand...

I don't do blogs for science, we've had that discussion multiple times, that doesn't mean, however, that I cannot or will not visit such to confirm or refute issues erroneously attributed to them when I feel the need to do so:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_arg.htm

picture.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_quote.htm

picture.php

1. Climate Myth by Lindzen = "Climate sensitivity is low"

Supporting Quote = ""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming"" 25 July 2012 (Source)

Quote Source = https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/warming_skeptic/

Quoted excerpt:

picture.php

2. Climate Myth by Lindzen = "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"

Supporting Quote = "If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something." 30 April 2012 (Source)

Quote Source = http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3

Quoted excerpt:
picture.php

Looks to me like the quotes and citations are valid, as is the science presented to rebut those assertions.
 
r-j said:
I think you mean "there", which is still completely unhelpful. If there is evidence, just present it.

Why would you lie about something so easy to check?
He never says "There's no tropospheric hot spot", which is exactly what SS quotes him as saying. And when they link from that claim, no mention of Lindzen at all.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm they do not even mention Lindzen.

The quote page has no quote about it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_quote.htm

But you don't show us where. Where is the quote on the SS blog?

It's more misdirection and vague claims. If you have some evidence, present it clearly.

I easily showed you why I say that SS page is unscientific. They claim Lindzen has these "popular myths" he uses, but they show zero evidence to back up what they claim.
Click to expand...


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_quote.htm

its right there. you can press ctrl-f and search for "If it's greenhouse warming, you get "

then you see the quote from him, and a link to the source, the long debunked propaganda film, the great global warming swindle.

and what he describes is indeed the Hot spot myth.
are you maybe not familliar with that myth? hard to imagine that you would miss any myth about your climate system.
 
r-j said:
Now none of that means Lindzen isn't actually a tool of the devil, I mean, the fossil fuel cabal. In the video linked to above he says "supposed" when talking about the increase in CO2, which is quite enough to make him seem dishonest, and I question his motives.

Just because I find the SS repulsive, doesn't mean I don't agree with them at times.
Click to expand...

Had you taken the time and trouble to use the resource properly r-j I'm sure you would have found it less repulsive. It is an excellent resource. Not perfect but very good indeed.
 
My examination of the SS blog years ago was one of the main reasons I find blogs like that to be actually anti-scientific.
 
r-j said:
My examination of the SS blog years ago was one of the main reasons I find blogs like that to be actually anti-scientific.
Click to expand...

yeah, that says alot, but not about ScepticalScience
 
DC said:
and at 14:45 you can see Lindzen saying exactly what they quoted.

and what he explains, is exactly what is know as the "missing hot spot" myth in the denialist blogosphere.
Click to expand...
It's worth pointing out that Lindzen knows it's a lie, as do Spencer and Christy when they trot it out. Such is the calibre of scientist the Denialati have to depend on.
 
Lindzen isn't actually a tool of the devil, I mean, the fossil fuel cabal.
Click to expand...

I guess if you don't consider getting paid by the fossil fuel cabal reason to doubt his neutrality.

n a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[7]
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[8]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."[9]
Click to expand...
Well now we know what he is.....it's just a matter of the price ....:rolleyes:
 
r-j said:
The far bigger problem SS has, is the almost complete disconnect from reality.
Click to expand...
It is rather ignorant to accuse an entire blog of being disconnected from reality because you cannot navigate a section, r-g :D!

They have:
Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen (quotes)
Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen (their articles mentioning him)
Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen (items from their list of climate myths that he has used)

And you are amazed that when they mention their articles and their list of climate myths, they link to their blog :jaw-dropp!

Here the climate myths that Lindzen has used. The articles contain references to the appropriate sources. The "What the Science Says" column is a summary of what the science says with links to the same articles explaining the science.
* "Climate sensitivity is low"
* "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"
* "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
* "Climate's changed before"
* "IPCC is alarmist"
* "CO2 limits will harm the economy"
* "It's a natural cycle"
* "Models are unreliable"
* "IPCC overestimate temperature rise"
* "It's a climate regime shift"
* "There's no tropospheric hot spot"
* "Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"
* "Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"
* "It's only a few degrees"
* "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"
* "Al Gore got it wrong"
* "It's a 1500 year cycle"
* "Increasing CO2 has little to no effect"
* "CO2 limits will hurt the poor"
* "CO2 is plant food"
* "CO2 was higher in the past"
* "Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup"
* "Ice age predicted in the 70s"
* "It cooled mid-century"
* "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"
* "There is no consensus"
* "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"
* "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"
* "It's not urgent"
* "Clouds provide negative feedback"
* "Removing all CO2 would make little difference"
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
He is talking directly about projections by the IPCC, and according to their projections, their claims, there should be much more warming observed by now.
Click to expand...
You really need to learn to click on links , r-j, since there is no "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" in Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen (quotes)

The Has Earth warmed as much as expected? climate myth he uses is where his Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reference is.
Richard Lindzen is not talking about projections from climate models.
Richard Lindzen is saying that the Earth has not warmed as expected by from estimates of climate sensitivity. He has been shown to be wrong as the article points out.
Has Earth warmed as much as expected?
Lindzen's argument has also been rebutted several times, including by Coby Beck in 2006 and Stefan Rahmstorf in 2008. Let's examine the errors that these rebuttals have uncovered in Lindzen's arguments.
Click to expand...

The measured global temperatures are actually at the higher end of the IPCC projections from climate models. This is not good - it implies that climate science is underestimating future temperature trends.
 
Minor regional climate shifts have destroyed many human civilizations...

Regardless of whether you understand and accept the human forcing of climate, or prefer to believe that it is due to some mysterious unknown/unknowable agency, regional climate fluctuations have wiped many human civilizations from the face of the planet so completely that absent from human history until the development of the science of archeology.

Climate Change Doomed the Ancients By ERIC H. CLINE MAY 27, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/climate-change-doomed-the-ancients.html?_r=0

...One of the most vivid examples comes from around 1200 B.C. A centuries-long drought in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, contributed to — if not caused — widespread famine, unrest and ultimately the destruction of many once prosperous cities, according to four recent studies.

The scientists determined the length and severity of the drought by examining ancient pollen as well as oxygen and carbon isotope data drawn from alluvial and mineral deposits. All of their conclusions are corroborated by correspondence, inscribed and fired on clay tablets, dating from that time...

...A 2012 study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science found that the surface temperatures of the Mediterranean Sea cooled rapidly during this time, severely reducing precipitation over the coasts. The study concluded that agriculture would have suffered and that the conditions might have influenced the “population declines, urban abandonments and long-distance migrations associated with the period.”...

...We still do not know the specific details of the collapse at the end of the Late Bronze Age or how the cascade of events came to change society so drastically. But it is clear that climate change was one of the primary drivers, or stressors, leading to the societal breakdown.

The era that followed is known as the first Dark Ages, during which the thriving economy and cultures of the late second millennium B.C. suddenly ceased to exist. It took decades, and even hundreds of years in some areas, for the people in these regions to rebuild...
Click to expand...

This was a rather mild regional climate change that hit the heart of western civilization some three thousand years ago, and destroyed many parts of that culture. Modern climate change is global, and happening at a rate and level that are much greater than anything recorded in the geologic record. Whether or not anyone wants to agree on the causation, it is only reasonable to update and upgrade infrastructure, building codes, pollution standards/regulations, and energy efficiency standards. If the climate patterns accelerate or reverse, we can enhance or relax adaptation policies.

I can't speak for others, but I would have little problem with distinguishing between climate disruption adaptation policies, and climate change reduction/reversal policies. Not that I don't feel that reduction/reversal is essential, but because at the speed that change is happening, we will save more human lives and national treasure by getting the adaptation programs running ASAP, while the reduction/reversal discussions resolve themselves over the coming decade or so.
 
macdoc said:
Well now we know what he is.....it's just a matter of the price ....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don't think he'd sell out his ideology at any price. The gratuities here are no doubt welcome, but what I think is most important is the adulation. Only as a contrarian can he be called "one of our great scientists" by US politicians, no less, after a frankly mundane academic career. Lindzen becomes a hero to people who don't realise that a thirty-year tenure requires (a) getting tenure (b) not dying for thirty years. Not exactly his peer group, but some people get off on the adulation of the proles.
 
cmon, Lindzen may not be the most qualified or top expert for climatology, but in meteorology. he sure was one of the top scientists you can buy for money.
if there is one that deservers to be called , leading scientist, i would argue it is Lindzen.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf

he got alot of prices you do not get just so i guess, the NAS surely is not selecting mediocre scientists.

just because he sold out at the end of his career doesn't mean he was not a real expert with real contributions to science and education.
 
Lindzen's not a hack, like Judith Curry, but he's still not stellar - hence mundane. He might have achieved more if he'd spent less time denying environmental hazards and more on his career but it was his life, his choice. And he will be remembered.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mg=reno64-wsj
Click to expand...
Skeptical Science have an article looking at the op-ed piece:
The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
It points out some amusing things such as "David Legates et al. in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education. That paper was based on a blog post written by Christopher Monckton, who's infamous for calling environmental activists “Hitler Youth.”". Any publication that cites Monckton is automatically dubious! It is doubly dubious when the blog post was a guest essay on Watts up With That.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom