Replies

Lindzen is a serious scientist, as well as a dissenter from the currently fashionable consensus, so when he says

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.

I take it as fact.

He then says Kyoto would most likely be ineffective even if fully implemented. Almost certainly correct. And that any currently proposed mitigation efforts would also be ineffective. Again correct.

He then claims that there's no reason for alarm, that the CO2 build-up is not-threatening. Bullshit.

He goes on to contend that the current consensus is dishonest as well as wrong, and motivated more by personal financial concerns than legitimate science - a cheap shot...and disgustingly self-righteous.

His comments are based on his understanding of the way "research" is conducted in this field. Since he's intimately familiar with the process and is one of the nation's preeminent atmospheric scientists I'll take his word for it, despite your own cheap shots at him.

On one hand, you say:

Lindzen is a serious scientist, as well as a dissenter from the currently fashionable consensus, so when he says ...[omitted]...I take it as fact.

Then -- quicker'n a snake in a blender -- you say:

He then claims that there's no reason for alarm, that the CO2 build-up is not-threatening. Bullshit.

Cherry-picking, anyone?

Face it, pal: You have a religious belief.

It's called Global Warming.

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 then claims that there's no reason for alarm, that the CO2 build-up is not-threatening. Bullshit.

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.