Prof Lindzen MIT has proven with hard data that Global Warming is a myth. How will we stop the Liars now?

Question

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT took 20 years to collect hard scientific data as a meteorologist on Global Warmer's number one claim that as CO2 builds the radiation of Temperature out to space decreases causing a Global Warming. After 20 years of collecting the data the science is in and it proves that all...

Answer 1

I wouldn't mention Gore in the same breath as someone who actually probably understands climate as well as any human on the planet like Lindzen. It is literally like comparing someone with a 6th grade level understanding to an MIT professor. I seriously doubt that professor Lindzen is willing to predict the future like alarmists do but your basic sentiment is valid. Gore should be made to pay for his asinine attack on capitalism. The only way to stop them is to label them for what they are and that is ignorant leftist agitators.

Answer 2

So a person long associated with denial has produced something that appears on a denial site SPPI that states it disproves GW, what a surprise.

Lindzen is a leopard that doesn't change his spots.
He shows the graph of se level rise, but only the short term 1994 to present, because he he showed the longer term graph it would show the rate of rise increased in the early 90s as the rate will continue to increase as the temp rises.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/in...

Since this "authoritative Monthly CO2 Report "? was produced July had the warmest global sea temp on record exceeding the previous record set in 1998 the following month August was also a record. The seasonal (June-August 2009) worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the warmest on record, 0.58°C.

"Arctic sea-ice extent is about the same as it has been at this time of year in the past decade."
Sorry that is a straight out lie, the ice extent is clearly shown on the NSIDC site
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_min...

"Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is at its lowest since satellite measurement began"
The people of the Philippines will be very surprised to here that, they seem to think they have been hit by 4 major storms in a month
http://www.physorg.com/news176054976.htm...

I'm sorry, but when I see people quoting from such easily disproved sources as SPPI I really have to wonder how anyone could be fooled by this nonsense.

The fact it is edited by Christopher Monckton an ex journalist, with no science qualification at all, adds little to it's credibility.

Answer 3

From the SPPI article:

Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate. Page 3.
-----------------------------
This is an attempt to portray the direct forcing by CO2 as small and quite inconsequential, which in and of itself is not far from the truth. To say however that understanding as to degree of forcing is something new and that this has not been reported in the media is untrue and misleading. The forcing for a doubling of CO2 has for quiet some time been understood to be 3.7W/meter^2 (1.2C degrees). The media does not get into the details of the science as the vast majority of it's audience would have their eyes glazed over. Most science reporters don't understand the science they report on either.

This statement also gives the impression that the direct forcing given by CO2 is all there is to the matter. If the Sun brightened so as to give the same forcing would that matter? Feedback mechanisms are know to be positive, otherwise climate could never have had the variation it has in the past, cycling between glacial periods and warmer interglacials over the past 3 million years.

Solar forcing and orbital factors can not account for anything near >6C degrees of variation. Water vapor feedback, ice albedo changes and changes in the carbon cycle take the relatively small initial warming due to CO2 and amplify the effects on global temperature to the levels we hear about. The final word on equilibrium climate sensitivity is still to be determined. The the best estimate is 1.5C to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2.

Answer 4

Um, where's the paper? Which journal and month. I undersand who Lindzen is, but I'm suspicious unless I know somebody has actually reviewed the research. The conclusions you claim directly conflict with Harries (2001 in Nature), Griggs, Chen (2007), Philipona (Geophysical Research Letters, 2004), and Evans (18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, 2006)

This least you could do, if Lindzen's conclusions are anything like you suggest, is tell us where the paper is pubished.

Now, I'd love to know how you got word that the minimum will last until 2030- rather than 2013 as believed by most who study the sun, and would be in line with the normal 11-year cycle. I would also like to know how a solar mimimum says anything about whether global warming is real. If 2030 is accurate, it merely means that we get 7 additional years of slow warming; it does not help generations that come later. We are continuing to warm while in the second year of cycle 24, so you can imagine the rate of warming when the sun cycles back to an active period, whether that's 2013 or 2030.

I think you have really garbled the politics and the science here. You seem to be saying global warm can't be real because the sun is less hot and because of China.

If you had done your homework, I would have liked to read what Lindzen actually wrote. But instead you just gave us Monckon garbage. Lindzen is worth reading, but I think Monckton may have lied about this research. If the research is so good, why did Monckton feel he had to paraphrase it rather than refer directly to the published article?

Stick to the science. Avoid the political plogs. Political blogs are intentionally misleading.

____

Mike, how is wanting to read the paper being like a brick wall? If it is a peer-reviewed pubication, just tell me which journal. I googled for it and could not find it.

Answer 5

You know it's really irritating when people who can't even speak intelligently about a subject and get their information from left-wing think tanks believe they're in the position to call an theory "real" and call tens of thousands of climate scientists "liars".

Lindzen's value for climate sensitivity is consistent with paleoclimate data. Simply put, The climate is as insensitive to warming as he claims, so the planet is able to transition between ice ages and interglacial periods, and has had the many large climate swings which have happened in the past.

FYI the solar output of the sun has decreased dramatically and our earth is in a cooling period.

Answer 6

Since it seems that I'm the only one on YA who has actually read the paper -- including the questioner -- let me just say that there's a lot less here than meets the eye.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-...

Lindzen & Choi picked nine episodes of rapidly warming or cooling SSTs for their study. Those episodes lasted for periods of 6 to 18 months. The purpose of the study was to estimate climate sensitivity **with feedbacks included**. But since they only looked at short term periods, their study, as designed, can only detect short-term feedbacks. Their study is incapable of detecting long-term feedbacks.

Why is this important? Let's ask the expert, Richard Lindzen:
"Simple calculations as well as GCM results suggest response times on the order of decades for positive feedbacks and years or less for negative feedbacks."

In other words, Lindzen's study can (and should) detect the fast acting negative feedbacks, while it is incapable of detecting the longer term, slower-acting positive feedbacks.

Therefore, we should EXPECT any climate sensitivity result derived from this method to be less than the actual climate sensitivity, since it includes the negative feedbacks but not the positive feedbacks. And guess what? Lindzen's result IS less than the actual climate sensitivity.

Imagine that.

Answer 7

wow. Who brushed the dust off of Lindzen and propped him back up? The last i heard, (10 years ago) was that MIT had their best legal minds scrambling to find a way to get rid of this guy. Oh yeah, you forgot to mention how Lindzen claimed that he had proved that the earth was only 4000 years old (in an obvious attempt to sell his book. Has he incidentally, written another?)

As for stopping liars, WE stop them with overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the majority.

Why on earth do you guys keep wagging this dog anyway?

Number6

Answer 8

The proof is and always will be in the pudding. The question is whether X causes Y. We have X - either Y will happen or not.

As for prior temperature shifts - there are prior shifts involving CO2 - but they involve a lot more CO2 than we're talking about now. When dinosaurs ruled the Earth, it was much warmer - but CO2 levels were 12-15 times their present level. That's very different from a 1/3 increase.

Answer 9

Oh sure, this is certainly proof positive! We have virtually tens of thousands of scientists, in dozens of scientific organizations that present evidence that global warming is being caused by CO2 generated by man, and you find a scientist or two that think otherwise, and you find this to be proof. Sounds like you are one of those conspiracy theorists that believe the moon landings were faked.

Answer 10

Ask a Climatologist.Meteorologists, virologists, botanists, geologists and physicists are all scientists. But they are not experts in the field of climatology. The only true expert in the field is a climatologist.