An Interview with Dick Lindzen

jem said:
closed loop... fraudcurrents and you are living and dying on a hockey stick graph that has not been updated with the the dozen or so studies that have come out since 2005... showing that the Midieval Warm Period was warmer than today.

Nor are you agw nutters looking at the science NASA produced showing CO2 also causes cooling in the atmospshere...

the people in the loop of ignorance are you.

If you wish to show otherwise..
produce some science showing man made co2 causes warming.

go ahead... post your best info... right now.
More...

Of what relevance is the "Medieval Warm Period"?
 
This is the best current reconstruction of temps. A general downtrend in temps abruptly change to an uptrend when we started burning stuff.


figure-6-10.jpeg
 
those old charts are 10 to 14 years old without any of the recent studies

let me post a real chart again.
 
Last edited:
futurecurrents said:
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
More...
Please note that the Society's statement does not include an acceptance of the Hansen hypothesis as plausible, though that may incorrectly be inferred from the word "rapid", perhaps inserted to placate a minority of members. I pointed out earlier, using a mathematical argument, why we can't know from direct observation if the increase in CO2 over the past 150 years is from human emission, so inclusion of that remark is also unwise and at odds with the position of a sizable fraction of the Society's members. The remainder of the statement, Lindzen would go along with. His position seems to be that when you combine the increase in CO2 over the past 150 years with the other non-condensing greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, very roughly equivalent to a doubling of CO2, about a one degree increase results from a model using zero feedback. Lindzen and I understand that to produce catastrophic warming, as predicted by the Hansen hypothesis, you must have positive feedback. The models used by the IPCC employ positive feedback.

Satellite observations indicate the feedback is negative rather than positive. The IPCC Models, therefore, are wrong!

What's important here is the question of whether positive feedback will cause a catastrophe in the case of rising CO2, as predicted by the Hansen hypothesis and models based on it. Direct observation has given us a clear answer, the Hansen hypothesis is false. The feedback is negative!

In Lindzen's talk before the House of Commons, he went into, in considerable detail, the models used by the IPCC to predict disastrous future temperatures. Here is his concluding remark from that presentation:

"Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age."
 
Who cares what Lindzen says? He is one of tiny minority and he's working for a conservative think tank just like you are. Why you place so much importance on whores, fools and frauds is a mystery. Oh that's right, no it's not.

I notice that you ignored my request to post actual quotes from Hansen about his "hypothesis" and instead just make it up as you go.

And your statement that we can't know if the CO2 is from man? Guess what? You are absurdly wrong and or lying your ass off.

How do they pay you? By post? Or did you work out some salary agreement?




piezoe said:
Please note that the Society's statement does not include an acceptance of the Hansen hypothesis as plausible, though that may incorrectly be inferred from the word "rapid", perhaps inserted to placate a minority of members. I pointed out earlier, using a mathematical argument, why we can't know from direct observation if the increase in CO2 over the past 150 years is from human emission, so inclusion of that remark is also unwise and at odds with the position of a sizable fraction of the Society's members. The remainder of the statement, Lindzen would go along with. His position seems to be that when you combine the increase in CO2 over the past 150 years with the other non-condensing greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, very roughly equivalent to a doubling of CO2, about a one degree increase results from a model using zero feedback. Lindzen and I understand that to produce catastrophic warming, as predicted by the Hansen hypothesis, you must have positive feedback. The models used by the IPCC employ positive feedback.

Satellite observations indicate the feedback is negative rather than positive. The IPCC Models, therefore, are wrong!

What's important here is the question of whether positive feedback will cause a catastrophe in the case of rising CO2, as predicted by the Hansen hypothesis and models based on it. Direct observation has given us a clear answer, the Hansen hypothesis is false. The feedback is negative!

In Lindzen's talk before the House of Commons, he went into the models used by the IPCC to predict disastrous future temperatures in considerable detail. Here is his concluding remark from that presentation:

"Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age."
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top