Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzenâs theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earthâs sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements. . Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if itâs wrong science. I donât think itâs intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, âWeâre sure itâs not a problem.â Itâs a special kind of risk, because itâs a risk to the collective civilization."
Dr. Lindzen explains the ridiculousness of the temperature variations reported by the AGW Alarmists. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KC9HOLaRaW8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What is the real goal of the AGW Alarmists. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/veLJSKXZJbw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Why the AGW Alarmists are not credible. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i1CR0v7dwXU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> The bottom line: âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â ~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist
that first video is very compelling. (and to answer the questions you always ask fc... if you see those charts you would never say you know we are in a warming trend... there may be a move up in the average but the we are still very much in the noise. ) you see the measurements and then by eyeball almost you can see that the increase of the average is still very much in the noise. No wonder the MET could not tell Parliament that using the best statistical measures there is warming. Looking at the chart he presents... you would have to say there is no warming ... we are within the noise.
These are statements I can only find challenged evidence for among the currently available science. At one time, a number of years ago, these statements reflected the scientific consensus. At present it appears that opinions of the experts are gradually shifting as defects in earlier data interpretations become more evident, and new data and analysis becomes available. In particular, though we have only rough estimates for En and Un, it is known that these quantities are roughly balanced and two orders larger than Ea. Given the relative magnitudes of, and error estimates for En, Un, and Ea, we can simply draw a line through Ea. It is negligible compared to the other terms. Furthermore, arguments based on amplified sensitivity to the much smaller Ea due to feedback mechanisms are made moot by consideration of any such mechanism also applying to the much larger En. It is also now known that water in its three phases is far more important in moderating surface temperature than is CO2 in its single gas phase. From the latest satellite data we've learned that the former assumption that fossil fuel burning is the only important contributor to changes in atmospheric C13 content is unfounded. Finally Salby's beautiful explanation of the ice core measurements makes it probable that past atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than earlier estimates. If this work is correct, and the peer review process and further observations will ultimately decide, then current CO2 levels are hardly unprecedented, as is still being claimed by some. The current data is entirely consistent with temperature being the most important influence on CO2 content --that is to say that CO2 content mirrors the integral of temperature, rather than the other way around. This simple recognition, along with delineating the time scales for conservative and non-conservative atmospheric CO2, may ultimately make Salby quite famous in the field of atmospheric physics. If Salby is ultimately shown to be correct, this would not be the first time by any means that common observations have been misinterpreted by many only to have someone come along and turn conventional thinking on its head. Copernicus did it, but it took Kepler and Galileo to end the gainsaying. Chances are it will take more than Salby. Entrenched minds resist change. The key feature that separates science from the non-sciences is that science, by definition, can never be completely settled because it must always remain falsifiable and subject to observation. It appears then that the question of how important anthropomorphic CO2 is in moderating the Earth's surface temperature is, so far, still very much unsettled science. All indications, however, now point to a high probability of it not being very important. Regardless, it would be a huge mistake to assume, therefore, that mankind need not be concerned about stewardship of its planet.
Piezoe while what you wrote is exquisitely written and and excellent summary. what was groundbreaking? he used tracks the integral -- we said lags temperature up and down. Wasn't he just repeating what lindzen and spencer and what we here on et have been saying? we have seen articles about air bubbles in the core - probably due to one of the many informative posts from pspr. I argued that the earth could be off gassing co2 so there is no way to argue earth it is a closed CO2 system so you could never argue mass is conserved. in short salby just summed up the science in a smart professorial almost john houseman manner. nothing new... just the truth. imo. i]Quote from piezoe:[/i] These are statements I can only find challenged evidence for among the currently available science. At one time, a number of years ago, these statements reflected the scientific consensus. At present it appears that opinions of the experts are gradually shifting as defects in earlier data interpretations become more evident, and new data and analysis becomes available. In particular, though we have only rough estimates for En and Un, it is known that these quantities are roughly balanced and two orders larger than Ea. Given the relative magnitudes of, and error estimates for En, Un, and Ea, we can simply draw a line through Ea. It is negligible compared to the other terms. Furthermore, arguments based on amplified sensitivity to the much smaller Ea due to feedback mechanisms are made moot by consideration of any such mechanism also applying to the much larger En. It is also now known that water in its three phases is far more important in moderating surface temperature than is CO2 in its single gas phase. From the latest satellite data we've learned that the former assumption that fossil fuel burning is the only important contributor to changes in atmospheric C13 content is unfounded. Finally Salby's beautiful explanation of the ice core measurements makes it probable that past atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than earlier estimates. If this work is correct, and the peer review process and further observations will ultimately decide, then current CO2 levels are hardly unprecedented, as is still being claimed by some. The current data is entirely consistent with temperature being the most important influence on CO2 content --that is to say that CO2 content mirrors the integral of temperature, rather than the other way around. This simple recognition, along with delineating the time scales for conservative and non-conservative atmospheric CO2, may ultimately make Salby quite famous in the field of atmospheric physics. If Salby is ultimately shown to be correct, this would not be the first time by any means that common observations have been misinterpreted by many only to have someone come along and turn conventional thinking on its head. Copernicus did it, but it took Kepler and Galileo to end the gainsaying. Chances are it will take more than Salby. Entrenched minds resist change. The key feature that separates science from the non-sciences is that science, by definition, can never be completely settled because it must always remain falsifiable and subject to observation. It appears then that the question of how important anthropomorphic CO2 is in moderating the Earth's surface temperature is, so far, still very much unsettled science. All indications, however, now point to a high probability of it not being very important. Regardless, it would be a huge mistake to assume, therefore, that mankind need not be concerned about stewardship of its planet. [/QUOTE]
Jem, That's got to be his own work on diffusion to explain the ice core data, otherwise he would have had to cite someone else --I didn't see any citation, did you? And he has interpreted the data in two time regimes, one in which CO2 is conserved, and another longer time regime which is non-conservative. That ties together loose ends. It's elegant and 'ground breaking'. The atmospheric physics people will ultimately pass judgment, one way or the other. Just saying global warming from anthropomorphic CO2 is a lot of hooey gets you no credit. Lot's of people have been saying that and making qualitative arguments --guesses really. You have to back it with a correct detailed analysis, ideally a mathematical model, that creates a coherent explanation consistent with all observations, not just most of them. It seems that's what Salby has done.
I think any reasonable person can look at the science promoted by the AGW crowd and look at all the purposeful frauds many scientists in that crowd have perpetrated and arrive at a conclusion skeptical of their premise. On the other hand, there are many reputable scientists who have tried to unwind the manipulation in temperature data or use the more reliable satellite data who have done their own analysis and investigation and have reached an entirely different conclusion than the AGW crowd. Take that together with the closer scrutinized temperature data of the last 17 years showing that warming has stopped and may be in decline and one sees a different picture coming to light. A reasonable man can only lean toward a conclusion that AGW is mostly a political movement and until and unless temperature begins to follow CO2 data the entire premise of a connection is flawed. Past correlations have more closely approximated solar, CFC and Pacific Decadal Oscillations than CO2 trace gas concentrations.