Posted on 07/02/2006 8:35:11 AM PDT by maine-iac7
Editor's note: Global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science...
The global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease--both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6ºC (or about 1ºF) over the past century is likely. A relevant question is whether this is anything to be concerned about....
It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are "record breakers" or even whether current temperatures are "unprecedented." All that matters is that the change over the past century has been small....
Kyoto, itself, will have no discernable impact on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change...
The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible...
The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto.
(Excerpt) Read more at heartland.org ...
It does pay to speak about the levels of atmospheric CO2. They are increasing. To be sure, over long periods, climate can cause CO2 changes, but the increases observed over the past century are likely due to man's activities. When and if the levels double, they will increase the radiative forcing of the planet by about 4 Wm-2, or about 2 percent. This will prove relevant.
You are aware that relavent and dangerous are two different words with significantly different meanings aren't you?
If we ascribe the entire change in temperature over the industrial period to change in CO2 alone, and none to the known increase in solar activity:
EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
Stephen E Schwartz
Brookhaven National Laboratory
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/Empirical.pdf
EMPIRICAL TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY
"Greenhouse gas forcing over the industrial period is 2.5 Wm-2
Temperature increase over the industrial period is 0.6K.Empirical Sensitivity: l = DT/F = 0.6K/2.5 Wm-2 = 0.24K/Wm-2"
The maximum temperature for change a 4 Wm-2 due to change in CO2 concentration is 0.96C
Hardly dangerous or catastrophic in anyone's book and far below the rediculas scenarios proffered by the UN/IPCC climate models.
He's in this field, doing "research" in it, getting funding to do that "research" but untainted? The only one who's untainted...or one of the few while all his opponents are tainted?
You believe that? I wouldn't admit to such stupidity.
Lindzen doesn't back up his statement with much either. We're not doing science here, we're doing political argument in sound bites. Lindzen wants you to believe that a massive build-up in CO2 will not have serious environmental consequences despite a very strong, 500,000 year correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO2 levels. I don't buy it. He's got to present much stronger arguments than he does before I'd even seriously consider it.
Face it, pal: You have a religious belief. It's called Global Warming.
You know that's not true from my last post to you on the other thread. In fact, I'm not religious - I don't have that kind of mentality. You do.
Why were the temperatures in the middle ages much warmer when CO2 was much lower? Why did we have the little ICE AGE. Why are there Glacial Epochs in the past during periods of CO2 levels that were many times higher than they are today? Why do the global warming models ignore the fact that the sun's output is not constant and varies in a cycle? Why do the global warming models ignore the changes in the earths orbit and inclination to the sun?
Any model must incorporate all the variable to have any validity. The global warming models use cherry picked information that will give them the result they want. It is junk science.
LOL! Calling me names proves your point? What a lame argument. All the researchers pushing the GW religion are subject to the vagaries of funding requirements also. If you bothered to read his argument you'd see that those researchers who don't toe the line of the GW orthodoxy are ostracized. Now that's what I call stifling research. But you seem convinced so I won't engage in a discussion with you. Go drive your electric. You're wasting bandwidth and electricity here.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are 25% above 500,000 year maximums and rising...and this rise is almost certainly due to human population growth and concomittant industrialization. You want to believe that's not something to be concerned about? Something which has very serious consequences to life on earth?
That strikes me as very strange.
Dr Lindzen also had a good piece in the June 26, 2006 WSJ. I'm sure someone can provide a better link than the one I have, which is from a search: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115127582141890238-search.html?KEYWORDS=Lindzen&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
You are engaged in a discussion with me. You're trying to have the last word without appearing to do so. Lame.
All the researchers pushing the GW religion are subject to the vagaries of funding requirements also. If you bothered to read his argument you'd see that those researchers who don't toe the line of the GW orthodoxy are ostracized. Now that's what I call stifling research
It's not a religion, it's an opposing point of view. Calling it a religion is another lame tactic.
Lindzen is arguing that concerns over funding are causing supporters of the "religion" to continue to advocate views that have no scientific validity. In effect, he's calling all his opponents dishonest. I say he's just as concerned about funding as they are, that he gets his funding from different sources and is as likely to present views pleasing to his sponsors as they are - no more and no less.
How should I know when the world's best scientists don't have definitive answers? But they do have answers. Surely you don't believe that they haven't addressed these questions, that you're the first to notice these things?
If you want to know what they say just google their work. Wikipedia provides a good starting point. I linked to it on a previous thread. If you'd like I'll provide the link on this one too.
[tinfoil]
Oh, come on. If "they" can knock off all of the microbiologists with impunity, what makes you think
they can't take care of Lindzen?
[/tinfoil]
If there is no possible way to disprove a theory then it is not a theory.
This must be repeated at every opportunity.
Megabump....great article. I think ultimately political forces will prevail and CO2 emissions will not be regulated to any significant extent in the US.
They have not addressed them. That is why it is junk science. One issue that has been addressed is the increasing temperature of the earth, and it is minor, that appears to be in step with the total solar radiation that we receive and it does vary. It varies with orbit, inclination of the earth, and the variable star itself we call the sun.
You're still here? I already told you to stop wasting bandwidth. Don't you know running your computer is using electricity and burning fossil fuels to do it? Follow the tenets of your religion and log off.
ping
There are no such epochs. I suggest you read my posts on this thread. Links to the basic data are provided.
Why did we have the little ICE AGE...They have not addressed them. That is why it is junk science.
Google "Little Ice Age"+global warming". I'm afraid the junk science is your science.
Don't you often confuse your comic-book power fantasies with real life?
This will never work. It doesn't lead to taxing Americans.
God invented winter so liberals forgot how hot it gets in the summer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.