|
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist — This has been waiting to get posted. I thought everyone was in agreement? Hmmm.
In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
This is on the Portland Examiner. Check out SF’s Environmental Policy Examiner, Thomas Fuller.
http://examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d26-By-requestmy-beliefs-on-global-warming#comments
>No one had forecast that we would already be seeing the clathrates melt and burp forth their methane, but they are doing so.
I think this is more alarmism getting ahead of science. The Copenhagen Synthesis Report makes no mention of clathrates, clathrate, methane ice, or methane hydrates.
If this is such a serious issue, that is going to accelerate global warming, I would think that report would have had this crucial update.
#119 – MikeN,
>climate change and sea level rise and ice melt and some other observations have all been near or above the worst case predictions of
The last few years have changed the situation. This is usually covered up with some fuzzy math, playing around with smoothing.
The last few years have changed nothing, except for those who do not know how to read a graph.
http://tinyurl.com/yzjr5ak
Note that these statisticians did not know they were looking at global temperatures. They were just looking for trends in the numbers. So there’s no bias on their part.
>I say this simply because thus far, the models have consistently underestimated the problem.
Lucia at The Blackboard has been showing how the model ensembles have been overstating temperatures.
Now this is the definition of bias. The models are overstating the numbers, but the actual numbers are worse than the models predicted. So Lucia is obviously biased and wrong.
>No one had forecast the dramatic reduction in arctic sea ice or the rapid rate of glacial melt that is already being observed.
They forecast much lower levels of Arctic ice in 2009 than actually happened. And this was with just a few months away from the end date.
Beware of the dangers of looking at small datasets. One year does not a trend make. 2009 was still the third lowest arctic ice year on record. And the glaciers are still melting.
http://tinyurl.com/39ohkv
>How does the son’s adaptation bent give credibility to the weatherman father or his blog?
He’s more than a weatherman, and is a legitimate climate scientist. If you could follow his science, I suspect you would agree with him quite a bit. My understanding is that he thinks global warming is caused more by consumerism than CO2, specifically land use change.
His formal training is in meteorology. Perhaps he has expanded his scope, but still has no training in any science related to climatology. Well, certainly consumerism causes burning of fossil fuels. It also causes deforestation, which releases more carbon, etc. So, on that point, I would say they’re both causes. So is overpopulation (the root of all of our problems).
What makes you say Pielke Jr is an adaptationist? He is always talking about decarbonizing the economy.
The publications on the list you gave were mostly about adapting to climate change. I don’t mean to minimize the importance of that. However, it starts from the assumption that the climatologists know what they are talking about.
>don’t pay attention to local studies like that one so was not aware of the local study you posted last time or the one to which you refer now.
OK. It is the latest hockey stick paper, generally given with the headline of ‘unprecedented Arctic temperatures’ or ‘two millenia of Arctic cooling reversed in the last century.’
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
#122 – MikeN,
>No one had forecast that we would already be seeing the clathrates melt and burp forth their methane, but they are doing so.
I think this is more alarmism getting ahead of science. The Copenhagen Synthesis Report makes no mention of clathrates, clathrate, methane ice, or methane hydrates.
If this is such a serious issue, that is going to accelerate global warming, I would think that report would have had this crucial update.
Well, there are a lot of politics in the IPCC and other international organizations. Most of the politics keeps toning down the actual science to make it sound less bad than it really is. How else would you get the U.S., Saudi Arabia, China, and Australia to agree on anything related to climate change? Remember, these are the largest oil importer, oil exporter, coal burner, and coal exporter, respectively.
http://tinyurl.com/bzh6dy
Regardless of whether it’s mentioned, it’s happening.
>The models are overstating the numbers, but the actual numbers are worse than the models predicted. So Lucia is obviously biased and wrong.
Take a look at Fig 3 of the Copenhagen Synthesis Report. They show temperatures to be well within the error margins of the IPCC models. With Hadley temperatures below 4 of 6 black lines, and GISS below 2 of 6. And this is after changing the smoothing to make temperature look higher.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/
So I guess we are in agreement, the IPCC is biased and wrong.
Here’s the latest from Lucia comparing models to actual temperatures. As for bias, keep in mind that Lucia believes global warming is happening, just not at the higher levels being predicted. Even those higher levels of predictions are on the sidelines. Try to find a model run at The Climate Explorer that predicts more than 4C of warming for this century.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/model-mean-trend-rejecting-since-2001-for-a-year/
I’m out of this thread.
MikeN,
Perfect example of looking at an insufficient sample size. People would have said the same in 1960 about the temperature leveling off or getting cooler, despite the fact that it was at least 0.2 degrees warmer than earlier in the century. People saying the same now are ignoring that it is 0.6 degrees warmer than 100 years ago. Small sample size. And, again, you’re citing a fucking blog.
Nice exit strategy though. I wish we had the same for Iraq.