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 ...
Thanks for the chuckle! ;o)
So no commentary on the graph I posted (which I now assume you can't read and interpret) that shows very little correlation over a long time scale, and the parroting of a wikipedia article along with a graph showing a very short time-scale.
Got it.
I need to read through that when I haven't just come from a "drain the cellar" wine tasting party.
I've got a strong background in heat transfer, but it's been 20 years since I've done anything with radiation heat transfer.
Do you have a link?
That last quote really lets the cat out of the bag on the watermelon Green agenda.
It's always about the money.
I've got a strong background in heat transfer, but it's been 20 years since I've done anything with radiation heat transfer.
Reading tThis one ought to torque the brain cells a bit then LOL ;O)
Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?
"It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
Heinz Hug and Jack Barrett
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htmAbstract
At the DECHEMA colloquium, held in Frankfurt on 11th Oct, 2001, Hug and Barrett gave papers that expressed doubts about the details of the manner that spectroscopy has been applied by members of the IPCC in coming to their conclusions about future climate change. IPCC proponents Bakan, Birk and Hollmann opposed the views. This paper summarizes the main points of difference and attempts to put forward the Hug/ Barrett arguments in the clearest terms.
Bullshit? Like the hockey stick? Like cherry picked data points? You should know BS well Larry, your side deals in it exclusively
This article should be posted in entirety.
Dangerous Warming Unlikely, MIT Climatologist Says
Global warming debate is more politics than science, according to climate expert
Written By: Dr. Richard Lindzen
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: November 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
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. Lindzen, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climatologists, told a September 9 audience at the Houston Forum that alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science.
The following excerpts from his presentation are presented with Dr. Lindzen's permission.
My personal experience over the last 16 years leads me to the conclusion that when it comes to politicized science, real communication is almost impossible. First, it leads to a meaningless polarization associated with meaningless questions, such as "Do you believe in global warming? Are you a believer or a skeptic?"
Given the many facets of the issue, if you are a believer, what exactly is it that you believe? Depending on whether you are a believer or not, you are likely to hear only what you expect to hear.
Recent Temp Changes Small
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.
The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of a degree, and all of you know intuitively that that isn't very much.
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.
Unscientific Consensus
The scientific question of relevance is what do we expect such an increase to do? The answer, most assuredly, is not to be arrived at by a poll of scientists--especially of scientists who do not work on this question. The issue of consensus is, in this respect, extremely malign, especially when the consensus is merely claimed though not established. However, the whole idea of consensus is problematic.
With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists. Of course, science is not primarily a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign. When in 1988 Newsweek announced that all scientists agreed about global warming, this should have been a red flag of warning. Among other things, global warming is such a multifaceted issue that agreement on all or many aspects would be unreasonable.
With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics.
Doubling of CO2 Little Cause for Concern
Let us begin by considering the fundamental question of whether the observed increases in CO2 are likely to be a source of alarm. We will see how the matter of consensus has been employed to mislead and misinform the public. It matters little that the claimed consensus is not based on any known polling of scientists.
Our concerns over global warming are based on models rather than data, and if these models are correct, then man has accounted for over 4 times the observed warming over the past century (even allowing for ocean delay) with some unknown process or processes having cancelled the difference. We assume, moreover, that these unknown processes will cease, in making predictions about future warming.
This statement illustrates that the observations do not support the likelihood of dangerous warming, but our ignorance may be sufficient to allow the possibility. In point of fact, our ignorance is probably not that great.
Computer Models Altered
How do we reconcile this with the claim that present models do a good job of simulating the past century? It's simple: The "accurate" model reconstructions require "forcings" of data and speculative guesses about such factors as the influence of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. In an inverse manner, trial-and-error assumptions and data are forced into the computer until the inaccurate model projections are reconciled with the observed climate. However, such inverse forcings are highly unscientific and unlikely to reach similar results regarding anything other than the particular range of data and temperature history the computer is attempting to reconstruct.
This would have been an embarrassment even to the Ptolemaic epicyclists, yet an almost identical analysis has just been presented to our government through such unscientific reconstructionist model forcings.
Science Contradicts Media "Consensus"
Consensus (as represented by all contemporary textbooks on atmospheric dynamics) exists, but does not support alarm. Consensus is therefore claimed for exactly the opposite of what science agrees on. Here is the correct statement: In a warmer world, extratropical storminess will be reduced, as will variance in temperature.
Given the speciousness of the bases for alarm regarding claims of increased storminess, it is perhaps unsurprising that there is real consensus on the following item, though the consensus is barely mentioned: Kyoto, itself, will have no discernable impact on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change.
Claims to the contrary generally assume that Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever-more restrictive regime. However, this is hardly ever explained to the public.
So, where does all this leave us?
(1) The data currently represented as "consensus," even if correct, do not imply alarm. However, where the consensus view is too benign, the opposite of the real consensus is claimed to be the consensus. In much current research, "alarm" is the aim rather than the result.
(2) 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.
(3) No regulatory solution to the "problem" of preventing increases in CO2 is available, but the ubiquity of CO2 emissions--which are associated with industry and life itself--remains a tempting target for those with a regulatory instinct who have always been attracted to the energy sector.
(4) Resistance to such temptations will require more courage and understanding than are currently found in major industrial or governmental players who largely accept what is presented as the consensus view. 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.
ping
If you'd bothered to read the wikipedia article (which I now assume you're incapable of doing) you'd have seen the graph with the longer time scale posted separately and an explanation of the different processes presumed to be in play over the longer period.
Calling 500,000 years a "very short time scale" is truly, mind-boggling dumb.
If you thought of anything except yourself you'd realize that responding to five guys, each posting long and complex questions and graphs is no easy thing. I'm not paid to do this and I'll take my own sweet time. If that's not good enough play with your rattle or suck your thumb.
Got it
I'd like to know what you think you've got. It sure isn't sense.
True.
Yet the 'distant past graph' shows a gradual decline in co2 levels over the last 500k years from much higher levels.
No. The 'distant past graph' shows a decline from very high levels millions of years ago to a level significantly lower than now which fluctuated with ice-age cycles (the medium term graph I posted). The Wikipedia article also contains a version of the 'distant past graph' and an explanation of the processes presumed to be dominant in that time.
It's disturbing to find so few posters who think it necessary to read the article, preferring to read only stuff which supports their point of view.
As for comparisons of man-made vs. volcanic co2 the wikipedia article also supplies numbers. Without a lot of effort I can't say to what extent yours and theirs differ and why...I'm not interested in becoming a climatologist. I just try to keep reasonably current.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Let's see now; I've been posting to this site since Jan 2001 while you began in Sept 2005. I've not been zotted and am generally treated with respect. Do you really think that possible for a dogmatic, intolerant, unthinking "liberal"?
I'd say I don't have to insult you. You reveal your very considerable limitations every time you post.
Old man, I'm afraid it will take me quite a while to digest all you've posted and come up with a complete response. But, for now, let's consider just the statement I quoted.
First, Lindzen is willing to agree that the co2 levels have risen in recent years due to human activity. How much? Well, it seems they've risen by at least 25% over maximums established over the last 500,000 years and will continue to rise for the next half-century.
Second, Lindzen thinks this is no cause for concern because his calculations lead him to believe that the rise in temperatures due to this build-up are very small. Most of the graphs and arguments posted on this thread are in support of this position.
Third, in the last 500,000 years co2 concentrations have followed temperature changes. In other words, temperatures changed due to solar energy fluctuations or wobbles in the earth's orbit and these temperature changes affected plant life which affected the carbon cycle.
In earlier periods, vulcanism was more important and co2 levels were closely related to volcanic activity.
Are we in agreement so far?
No link, but the story has been posted on a number of conservative websites including a Canadian one (Canada Free Press (?). The scientists and climatologists quoted were mostly Australian and Canadian ones. They were scathing in their condemnation of Gore's flick. I think the author of the article was named Tom Ferrell, but I'm not sure. Sorry I can't tell you more.
Since you didn't answer substantively to any of the critiques of your contention posted by myself or especially ancient geezer who responded directly to your assertions I'm assuming you don't know anything about the science of GW, you just spout the nonsense you do because it sounds right.
I've actually been posting here for quite a bit longer than a year but I changed my name because I like this one better. However, your critique of my "time" here is a cheap trick used by posters with no facts to argue hence the use of the childish tactic of hauling out the "I've been here longer than you" argument.
Finally, deny it all you want, you're a leftist. You may be non subversive enough to retain your posting privileges but nevertheless you reek of socialism.
I'll take my time responding to ancient geezer.
In the last 500,000 years atmospheric co2 concentrations have corelated well with temperature changes. Before that they didn't. The reason is that many different processes and conditions influence both.
To what extent can we look to the distant past - when volcanic activity spewed far greater amounts of co2 into the atmosphere than currently - as a guide to the influence of co2 on temperature? I suspect very little, since too many things are different or unknown.
To what extent can we look to the distant past as a guide to tolerance of modern life forms for much higher levels of co2? Not much I suspect, since ancient life forms were so different.
To what extent do modern physics and mathematical models guide us? I don't know. As a layman I can't make sense of the scientific disputes.
I'm assuming you don't know anything about the science of GW, you just spout the nonsense you do because it sounds right.
You're right. I am a layman with only a general scientific background to guide me. But I don't think you're any different. I know it and you don't.
Lindzen claims that there's a tacit conspiracy to suppress science which doesn't support current leftist orthodoxy. He claims that in the Wall Street Journal...and earlier, in Scientific American. That, alone, should tell you that his claims are self-serving nonsense.
It's not that such things don't happen. They certainly do. The science of human genetic differences is a perfect example. Another is university "political science" in general. But they always fail. The research gets done, the results get out.
The question then is how does a layman evaluate the evidence when specialists bitterly dispute it? My answser is threefold; reading, disputing with those who don't agree with you, and seat of the pants observations. It's the latter which keep me in the majority camp. I lived in L.A. for a long time, a place where a local microclimate is pronounced. I was an ocean lifeguard for more than a quarter of a century. I can tell you that smog sucks and is dangerous to your health, and that ocean pollution in the Santa Monica bay is bad enough to cause disease in humans and genetic abnormalities in fish and is getting worse. So when people try to tell me that tons of pollutants being poured into the environment are not something to worry about I detect a bad odor.
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.