Yes basically just wild speculation on my part. I am a scientist (you may have guessed that, because of the ease with which I could "throw around some science words") but I never worked on global warming. I have only read a few papers on the topic, and, as I said, Lindzens early papers are the only ones I studied in depth and did some rough calculations to see if they made sense to me. I have read a number of other more recent AGW papers, naturally, but I didn't put much time or effort into them. I have published in photo chemistry, though I'm not a photo chemist or physicist I collaborated with them, so I do understand the greenhouse effect and its photo physics -- again making it easy to throw those words around. After a lifetime of this business you tend to learn a few things you didn't intend to learn, such as not jumping to conclusions prematurely. Oh, and I am fast becoming convinced that much of the early work on AGW is seriously flawed, but not entirely invalid. The good work is just now coming to light. I think, however, I am rather rapidly coming around to Lindzen's early assessment of Hansen. You guys got me more interested in a topic I really had only a passing interest in previously. Once I think I have more or less figured something out, I will lose interest in it. I would pursue developing an electrical equivalent circuit for a water-CO2 model if I had a sharper, younger mind than mine to collaborate with. That does interest me!
I wonder why you mention Lindzen and not any one of the other 97% of climate scientists that are not climate misinformers. I think you would agree that my degree in environmental science and my immersion in the topic for last ten years makes me more qualified and knowledgable about AGW than you are. Not to mention the fact that you are full of shit and a liar.
The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. 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."[67] A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is."[3] The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[68] Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[69][70][71] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[72] The previously-cited New York Times article said that "at gatherings of climate change skeptics... Dr. Lindzen has been treated as a star", but that in the view of "the scientific majority... he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction."[67] A 2014 article in The Guardian, written by John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli, stated that Lindzen was "arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest."[73]
The irony right there is too overwhelming. You only know of bern do you? No other studies, papers, observational scientific analysis. No of course not, because you copy everything mainly from a one and only single source - a website in pursual of a one sided denial of AGW. Talk about jumping to conclusions prematurely. No I wasn't using bern. But then of course the trick is to look for any denial in that one place no matter how much it may not be grounded as the research is, and once again you can convince yourself to jump to a few more conclusions prematurely. As if you needed a reason. Good one though piezoe, you had me going. For one second there I thought you actually were genuinely debating the role of the C-14 signature in fossil fuel. Had I known you were so easily convinced to the contrary, I would have opened by raising an important question about a bridge I have for sale.
Yes, you are undoubtedly more qualified. Possibly wrong however. Edison and Westinghouse were both qualified, but Westinghouse was correct and Edison wrong. Planck, Born and Einstein were all qualified, but Born was right and Einstein and Planck wrong. Sometimes it is not a matter of being qualified. I have learned that it is possible to become so close to the trees that one can not see the forest.
Stu, did you read the blog that Jem gave the link to? If so, what do you think? I thought it was quite interesting and likely correct.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/ Jem, that's a beautiful, critical review of the recent work. I'll admit that I am saying that because it presents some of the same arguments, using a nearly identical analogy, I have made previously in a much less elegant manner. So obviously I am in agreement. It seems Professor Salby is headed for the Nobel Prize. I'm quite serious. It is almost ridiculous how flawed the earlier science is.
Incidently there are errors in equations (3) and (4) but these errors do not affect the validity of the arguments. see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/ Also I think the conclusion reached by Monckten in this paragraph of his review is incorrect, because all molecules of CO2, not just the anthro molecules, would have the same kinetics. But again it does not impact on the main thrust of his interesting review. "To do a reductio ad absurdum in the opposite direction, suppose every molecule of CO2 we emitted persisted in the atmosphere only for a fraction of a second, then the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on global temperature would be negligible, and changes in CO2 concentration would be near-entirely dependent upon natural influences."