Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AaronInCarolina
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.

190 posted on 04/11/2007 10:45:00 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]


To: cogitator
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.

Does your 90% confidence in the IPCC allow for you to explain why for the past 6 or 7 years why there has been no appreciable continuation of the warming trend? And I base this upon GISS, NOAA and IPCC data. Any graph, even of surface temperatures, that you want to look at (if it is current up to 2007) show a plateau was reached by around 2001. This is the longest lasting stable period since the recent warming apparently began (assuming UHI isn't a big factor). Can we blame this on sulfate aerosols this time? There have been no big volcanic eruptions in this period. CO2 continues to go up rapidly over this 6 year period.
202 posted on 04/11/2007 11:12:59 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson