Replies

Unfortunately, Dr. Lindzen's skepticism is erroneous.

The blue band is the modelled global temperature with only natural forcings. The red band includes anthropogenic forcing. The black line is the observed temperature record.

This is Figure SPM-4 from AR4 (page 11) of the most recent SPM. These are all based upon GCM's that most of us skeptics find to be erroneous, or at least not nearly complex enough. It is peculiar to me that you would seek to prove that Lindzen's conclusions are erroneous when he dissents from IPCC conventional wisdom by presenting the IPCC's own charts as proof against him. I think it is pretty obvious that Dr. Lindzen does not agree with, nor puts much faith in the IPCC's GCM simulations, and the use of them is a futile attempt at circular logic.

These are all based upon GCM's that most of us skeptics find to be erroneous, or at least not nearly complex enough.

To prove they're wrong or significantly inaccurate, you have to show why. Merely thinking they're wrong is insufficient, and the scientists already know where the main uncertainties are. Attribution cannot be done without models.

It is peculiar to me that you would seek to prove that Lindzen's conclusions are erroneous when he dissents from IPCC conventional wisdom by presenting the IPCC's own charts as proof against him.

I was addressing your statement here: "You know enough about Dr. Lindzen, I am quite sure, to know that he meant that some amount of warming as a result of increasing GHG's is undeniable, but not the main force behind the recent warming."

The IPCC chart shows, as a summary of current research and knowledge, that nothing else -- especially that which is classified as "natural" -- could be the main force behind the recent warming other than greenhouse gas radiative forcing.

So if Lindzen thinks as you think he does -- and I believe what you wrote is reasonably accurate -- I have strong confidence, at or above the 90% level, that he's basically wrong. And I've shown just one of many reasons why.