Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

[billvon 3,070]

>So a shipping company CEO is a better source than an MIT scientist
>because the magnate supports your position?

Nope. But the fact that ships can, in fact, traverse a passage that was once icebound beats a theory that they can't any day.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I find his bio combined with the financial gain he achieves by being a denier makes him less credible than the scientists at NOAA, NSIDC and NASA who aren't payed for their opinions.

They are not working for free, are they?

I believe they are paid a salary regardless of what they discover. Which is more than can be said for the shills for the oil and coal industries.

You may recall the American Enterprise Institute offering $10k in cash for scientists to become deniers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. Who pays them? And where do they get their money? Do you think Raytheon spent its time researching why its defense products weren't needed? I personally suspect that, oh, Northrop employees have plenty of people whose research suggests the continuing and future needs for stealht-capable air superiority fighters.

"What do you do?"
"I'm a climate scientist."
"So you study the mechanisms of climate?"
"Yep. I don't make much money, though. Because I believe human effect on climate is minimal."
"Why should that matter?"
"Because the money is in getting people to avert disaster. I'm saying we can't because we are causing it. Would you pay a mechanic to fix a car that has nothing wrong?"
"No."
"Exactly. If the mechanic told you that your spark plugs were at risk of causing catastrophic damage and should be replaced, then you'd certainly consider paying him for that - and even thanking him. Welcome to climate science."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dks13827 3]

many, many years ago, we learned in JR High School science about the self correcting, self balancing eco-system. In part, for example, a hotter sun causes more clouds which reflects more energy away from the earth, hence, cooling. This was taught back in the 60's, including a graph of the average temperature always tends to hover near the mean. Without that tendency...............

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So a shipping company CEO is a better source than an MIT scientist
>because the magnate supports your position?

Nope. But the fact that ships can, in fact, traverse a passage that was once icebound beats a theory that they can't any day.

Cool, then IL and IA having the coldest July's on record count too!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

many, many years ago, we learned in JR High School science about the self correcting, self balancing eco-system. In part, for example, a hotter sun causes more clouds which reflects more energy away from the earth, hence, cooling. This was taught back in the 60's, including a graph of the average temperature always tends to hover near the mean. Without that tendency...............

But did you study Venus too?

Not all systems have a stable equilibrium.

[lawrocket 3]

Venus is stable. It is at equilibrium. Greenhouse theory purports that additional CO2 will raise the earth's temperature equilibrium.

It appears from the data that the El Nino Southern Oscillation has a very strong corellation with global temperature fluctuations and extremes. Very little is understood about the cause and the dynamics involved with the ENSO.

It seems to this observer that understanding the ENSO is a key step to understanding climate patterns. It drives so much of the world climate.

Note - even plate tectonics drives climate. The ENSO is strategically located in the Pacific. This means that climates of the past (20 million years ago and greater) would have different ocean forcings because the oceans were bigger and smaller.

One can imagine the hurricanes that developed in the oceans when Pangea was to sole supercontinent. Check out the Great Red Spot on Jupiter - a giant hurricane without a land mass to drain it of energy. Thing of a hurrican developing off the west coast of Pangea and having an ocean crossing of 2/3 of the planet to build energy before it hits the east coast of Pangea!!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Venus is stable. It is at equilibrium. Greenhouse theory purports that additional CO2 will raise the earth's temperature equilibrium.

It appears from the data that the El Nino Southern Oscillation has a very strong corellation with global temperature fluctuations and extremes. Very little is understood about the cause and the dynamics involved with the ENSO.

It seems to this observer that understanding the ENSO is a key step to understanding climate patterns. It drives so much of the world climate.

Which is why drawing conclusions from changes over a 10 year period (like rushmc does) is completely meaningless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skiskyrock 0]

from the editorial describing the article:

Quote

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

That must be one heck of an article. Unfortunately I can't find it on Lindtzen's publication list to review the original source.

The assuming the summary accurately reflects the publication, it does raise a few questions :

1) Graph C shows a comparison of the ERBE data to 11 climate models; the IPCC data website shows 23 models ... how does the data agree with the other 12?

2) of the 11 models that show a negative slope between the , only 5 of them show a correlation I would even consider putting in a publication of these 5 two sets of data are just different resolution runs of the same model, so call it 4 out of 11

3) data presented in the summary show a change SST of about 1.2C, but they claim from graph D that there is no change SST; perhaps the author is picking a subset of the ERBE global data I hope they are taking a consistent subset of the computer model data

4) they implicit assumption seems to be that all of the long wave radiation is from the sea surface temperature change, but one of the observations of ERBE experiment is that clouds that form over the ocean reflect more long wave radiation than clouds that form over land, so the observed flux may be combination of long wave radiation from the sea surface and reflection from the sun

5) the statement in the summary "Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate." is only correct if everything else is held constant and there is nothing absorbing the longwave radiation like, ah, CO2

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree, John. If nobody predicted it and nobody can explain it, there is a legitimate, though arguable, conclusion that we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

Under the theory and the state of science as we presently understand it this should not be happening. It should not have happened. Never.

CO2 concentration continues to increase. Temperature is not increasing. CO2 forcings still apply, meaning something else that we are not understanding is occurring to moderate it.

For a fucking decade, john, we've been flat and at less than 1998. The laws of physics are what they are. More CO2 reflects back more longwave IR and increasing temperatures.

So something else is at work and we don't know what it is. "Wait another 50 to 100 years. Then we'll talk about whether I could be wrong" is an unacceptable answer to any reasonable person.

"What the hell is going on?" might be a reasonable question from the scientific community. Versus "we can't draw any conclusions."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I disagree, John.

OK, no surprise.

Quote

For a fucking decade, john, we've been flat and at less than 1998. The laws of physics are what they are. More CO2 reflects back more longwave IR and increasing temperatures.

"Flat" is a very strange description of a graph that fluctuates with significant statistical variation from year to year. "Spiky" is more like it. And despite the 1998 El Nino anomaly, the rolling mean is still increasing and the temperature anomaly remains positive.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Funny - you can't look at short term trends unless it is to demostrate variability of shorter trends.

You know what I mean by "flat." And I even explained that we haven't warmed in ten years. "Gee, lawrocket, it's warmer now than it was at 6:00 a.m."

You know what I mean.I could go to 98 and say "the trend in cooling." And I'd be right. It doesn't tell the story, though.

The last ten years have not shown warming. This is fact. Why is it? Nobody knows.

The implication is that we are in the Medievel Times with our understanding of the climate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

From the article, 1st paragraph. Too many links and supporting reviewed papers to link
This should heat up, ah, no, cool off the debate

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

Quote

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Google search of Dr Lindzen

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Professor+Richard+Lindzen+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Funny - you can't look at short term trends unless it is to demostrate variability of shorter trends.

You know what I mean by "flat." And I even explained that we haven't warmed in ten years. "Gee, lawrocket, it's warmer now than it was at 6:00 a.m."

You know what I mean.I could go to 98 and say "the trend in cooling." And I'd be right. It doesn't tell the story, though.

The last ten years have not shown warming. This is fact. Why is it? Nobody knows.

The implication is that we are in the Medievel Times with our understanding of the climate.

We are in medieval times with our understanding of solid state physics, but we can make pretty damn good cell phones and flat screen TVs with the knowledge we have. We are in the Dark Ages with our understanding of polycrystalline plasticity, but we can make pretty good beer cans with the knowledge we have.

In other words, I disagree with your assessment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

I will take opinion of this world class expert on the issue over yours. You OK with that?

He has went back and looked at the origins of this religion. Interesting to read

Enjoy.

lawrocket, this may be of perticular interest to your and your positions


Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I will take opinion of this world class expert on the issue over yours. You OK with that?

Why do you ignore the opinions of the many world class experts that disagree with him, including those who aren't in the pay of the oil and coal industries?

It wasn't long ago that "world class experts" in the pay of the tobacco industry were telling us that smoking isn't harmful.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

It wasn't long ago that "world class experts" in the pay of the tobacco industry were telling us that smoking isn't harmful.

And people who made their living selling cigarettes were happy to believe them too.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 3,070]

>And people who made their living selling cigarettes were happy to believe them too.

Indeed! When a man's livelihood depends on him not understanding something, he will make a mighty effort to remain ignorant of that thing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I will take opinion of this world class expert on the issue over yours. You OK with that?

Why do you ignore the opinions of the many world class experts that disagree with him, including those who aren't in the pay of the oil and coal industries?

It wasn't long ago that "world class experts" in the pay of the tobacco industry were telling us that smoking isn't harmful.

Smoking is a red hearing in this debate. As for the other experts , like the oh great one from NASA (I am trying to remember is metorlogical credentials, hmmm) and I know there are many, their conclusions do not make sense when compared to data and info from research looking back into the planets climate 1000's of years back. Computer models that in many cases have been used to push this hype can be and have been "adjusted" to fit the view. Not to mention the fact that we know little about the workings of the climate of this planet in total. Add to all of this the failed predictions (which not too long ago the likes of you and billvon touted as proof we knew for sure what was going on) and there is more than enough to be highly skeptical at the very least!!!

The hype and the outright lies, films like the great Al Gore (along with his multi-billion dollare gamble on software to support cap n trade workings) are more examples that keeping the planet safe is a secondary motive.

I am all for clean air, water and land. CO2 is not a polutant. Regulating it seems to be purely a power grab and dollar motives. Now, next, you will bring up the coal and oil industries fight to save themselves. wouldnt you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>Smoking is a red hearing in this debate.

Years ago, tobacco companies funded scientists to "muddy the waters" on the risks of cigarette smoking. "The science isn't settled! We don't know everything about lung cancer, therefore you can't say that smoking causes it. There's no consensus!"

They even created a 'scientific group' - the Council for Tobacco Research. They did "scientific studies" to prove that smoking wasn't bad for you, and that eliminating smoking would destroy the economy. They were also quite active politically, leading one senator to remark "dollar for dollar they're probably the most effective lobby on Capitol Hill."

They funded scientists both openly and secretly. In several cases, they bribed scientists to change their findings to support the case that smoking was not bad for you. In one famous case they paid $500 to an author, Stanley Frank, to write an article "exposing the lies" about the cigarette-cancer connection, then paid the publisher $500,000 to accept and publicize the article. They were caught (unfortunately for them.)

And amazingly, many of the same people who took cigarette money for their integrity are now taking oil money for their integrity. Fred Seitz took over half a million from big tobacco to deny the cigarette-cancer connection. It was a great return on investment; estimates put the amount of money that tobacco companies made because of his denials at $60 million. In the 1990's he turned to big oil and climate change denial. He worked for the George C. Marshall Institute issuing statement after statement of how his employers were NOT damaging the environment with CO2 emissions. And again, he was very well paid. He also came up with the fraudulent Oregon Petition, in which he claimed that "31,478 American scientists" disputed the facts of climate change. When the list was examined, it was found populated with names like the Spice Girls, the cast of M*A*S*H and a great many dead people.

Another is Fred Singer. He was often paid by the tobacco industry to dispute the idea that secondhand smoke was bad for you. A few years back his organization was offered 5 million by the American Petroleum Institute to "convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty" and attempt to "raise questions about and undercut the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change."

When his plan was discovered by a reporter, the Petroleum Institute dropped their offer.

These are the "impartial experts" you trust over scientists who favor science over a fat payoff.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Smoking is a red hearing in this debate.

Years ago, tobacco companies funded scientists to "muddy the waters" on the risks of cigarette smoking. "The science isn't settled! We don't know everything about lung cancer, therefore you can't say that smoking causes it. There's no consensus!"

They even created a 'scientific group' - the Council for Tobacco Research. They did "scientific studies" to prove that smoking wasn't bad for you, and that eliminating smoking would destroy the economy. They were also quite active politically, leading one senator to remark "dollar for dollar they're probably the most effective lobby on Capitol Hill."

They funded scientists both openly and secretly. In several cases, they bribed scientists to change their findings to support the case that smoking was not bad for you. In one famous case they paid $500 to an author, Stanley Frank, to write an article "exposing the lies" about the cigarette-cancer connection, then paid the publisher $500,000 to accept and publicize the article. They were caught (unfortunately for them.)

And amazingly, many of the same people who took cigarette money for their integrity are now taking oil money for their integrity. Fred Seitz took over half a million from big tobacco to deny the cigarette-cancer connection. It was a great return on investment; estimates put the amount of money that tobacco companies made because of his denials at $60 million. In the 1990's he turned to big oil and climate change denial. He worked for the George C. Marshall Institute issuing statement after statement of how his employers were NOT damaging the environment with CO2 emissions. And again, he was very well paid. He also came up with the fraudulent Oregon Petition, in which he claimed that "31,478 American scientists" disputed the facts of climate change. When the list was examined, it was found populated with names like the Spice Girls, the cast of M*A*S*H and a great many dead people.

Another is Fred Singer. He was often paid by the tobacco industry to dispute the idea that secondhand smoke was bad for you. A few years back his organization was offered 5 million by the American Petroleum Institute to "convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty" and attempt to "raise questions about and undercut the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change."

When his plan was discovered by a reporter, the Petroleum Institute dropped their offer.

These are the "impartial experts" you trust over scientists who favor science over a fat payoff.

Nice billvon.

I guess you think you are the only one with impartion experts.
Nice

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

>So a shipping company CEO is a better source than an MIT scientist
>because the magnate supports your position?

Nope. But the fact that ships can, in fact, traverse a passage that was once icebound beats a theory that they can't any day.

Cool, then IL and IA having the coldest July's on record count too!

This summer has certainly sucked for warmth in Chicago!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

...


These are the "impartial experts" you trust over scientists who favor science over a fat payoff.

Nice billvon.

I guess you think you are the only one with impartion [sic] experts.
Nice

I don't recall Bill's starting any thread with a long excerpt from the work of a paid shill for the environment. Maybe you could take a lesson from that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

...


These are the "impartial experts" you trust over scientists who favor science over a fat payoff.

Nice billvon.

I guess you think you are the only one with impartion [sic] experts.
Nice

I don't recall Bill's starting any thread with a long excerpt from the work of a paid shill for the environment. Maybe you could take a lesson from that.



Dude, anybody worth his salt gets good pay. That is why you are jelous.

Unfortunatly for you and billvon, the smoking analogy sucks AND, this guy has more credibilty and credentials than most anybody you have dared to quote!!

You two have to take anybody with whom you do not agree and try, yes TRY (in this case) to trash them because he is smart enough, trained enough, skilled enough and peer reviewed enough to have a impact on the topic.

Now, lets look at the agendas of you and billvon. You say you beleive in AGW and that we should change our ways. To do what? Well, live like YOU think we should all live. (cause anybody making more money or having better things than you is not right) Wind energy, no coal, smaller econbox cars with high MPG. You do all under the guise that YOU know what is best and all us other bastards are killing the planet. (You really are funny)

So, it is my conclusion YOU two are the ones with an agenda. The agenda is to tell us that we need to live as you do. The ones who want to take those who work and earn and give it to those who support your ideals and ideology. Why? Cause you (think) know it the right thing to do!!!

Your AGW trek is falling apart. That may change IF more info comes to light. At this time at least that is not happening.

The second link shows the history of how this mess began. It is worth reading. If for no other reason that because he has more peer reviewed papers than you will ever have

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>Unfortunatly for you and billvon, the smoking analogy sucks . . .

You better tell all the climate-change deniers who used to be smoking-causes-cancer deniers, then!

>Now, lets look at the agendas of you and billvon.

Yes, let's look at our respective agendas.

I work for a telecom company. We make chips that go into cellphones. Whether or not climate change progresses rapidly or slowly, and whether or not we try to mitigate it, people buy cellphones - and I make money.

Now let's look at your agenda. If people start admitting that ever-higher concentrations of CO2 are a bad thing, the industry you rely on (coal power) suffers.

Your agenda is to make as much money as you can. That's not a bad thing - it's what capitalism is based on. Therefore, your agenda includes denying anything that has to do with climate change, for your own personal profit.

>You do all under the guise that YOU know what is best and all us
>other bastards are killing the planet.

Yep. And such concepts have proven to work in the past, despite all the deniers screaming bloody murder that pollution isn't bad, that CFC's aren't damaging the ozone layer, and that pollution controls will destroy the US.

People remember that stuff. They remember when the car companies claimed that CAFE and pollution requirements would bankrupt them. They remember when industry claimed that fuel efficiency requirements would result in everyone driving tiny econoboxes by 1990. They remember when a tobacco-funded denial group told them smoking was safe. They remember when industry claimed that pollution controls wouldn't clean the air in Los Angeles.

And after a while, even people who aren't paying much attention start realizing that the coal, tobacco, oil and energy industries are lying to them - or at best stretching the truth to make as much money as possible. And again, there's nothing wrong with that - but it does tell you how much credibility you should place on their screaming denials.