Jump to content


The Environment


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

2 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

Except for Ian.  Not looking to mild as it hits Florida here in about 5 hours.

The one that hit Canada was tough I think. Maybe not a high category once it went over colder waters. Ian could be a CAT5. Haven't had one those in awhile. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Warming by carbon dioxide is logarithmic due to ‘saturation’ within the infrared spectrum, and any future doubling of the gas in the atmosphere will be associated with the same warming of around 1°C. This result is not considered controversial, argues atmospheric scientist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT – although it might be noted that it is, since it fatally undermines the political ‘settled’ science concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Professor Lindzen notes that the present “absurd ‘scientific’ narrative” leaves us with a quasi-religious movement – atop of all this has been the ”constant Goebellian repetition by the media of climate alarm”.
 


 

For Lindzen, it is “absurd” to assume that the controlling factor for temperature changes in the complex three-dimensional climate is the small contribution of CO2. He notes the evidence from the Antarctica Vostok ice core that showed cooling preceded decreases in CO2 during the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years. For the paleoclimatic record going back 600 million years, “there is no suggestion of any correlation with carbon dioxide at all”, he added.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Warming by carbon dioxide is logarithmic due to ‘saturation’ within the infrared spectrum, and any future doubling of the gas in the atmosphere will be associated with the same warming of around 1°C. This result is not considered controversial, argues atmospheric scientist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT – although it might be noted that it is, since it fatally undermines the political ‘settled’ science concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Professor Lindzen notes that the present “absurd ‘scientific’ narrative” leaves us with a quasi-religious movement – atop of all this has been the ”constant Goebellian repetition by the media of climate alarm”.
 


 

For Lindzen, it is “absurd” to assume that the controlling factor for temperature changes in the complex three-dimensional climate is the small contribution of CO2. He notes the evidence from the Antarctica Vostok ice core that showed cooling preceded decreases in CO2 during the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years. For the paleoclimatic record going back 600 million years, “there is no suggestion of any correlation with carbon dioxide at all”, he added.

How many other scientists believe this compared to the opposite?

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

How many other scientists believe this compared to the opposite?

I don’t know that number.  But if that’s the standard, how many scientists long ago believed the Earth was flat vs those that didn’t.  Until they all realized it was round.   
 

It’s possible he’s wrong, but the premise seems sound.  

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t know that number.  But if that’s the standard, how many scientists long ago believed the Earth was flat vs those that didn’t.  Until they all realized it was round.   
 

It’s possible he’s wrong, but the premise seems sound.  

Sure.  

 

But, pardon me if I lean towards believing the vast majority of world climate scientists.

  • Plus1 1
  • TBH 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Warming by carbon dioxide is logarithmic due to ‘saturation’ within the infrared spectrum, and any future doubling of the gas in the atmosphere will be associated with the same warming of around 1°C. This result is not considered controversial, argues atmospheric scientist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT – although it might be noted that it is, since it fatally undermines the political ‘settled’ science concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Professor Lindzen notes that the present “absurd ‘scientific’ narrative” leaves us with a quasi-religious movement – atop of all this has been the ”constant Goebellian repetition by the media of climate alarm”.
 


 

For Lindzen, it is “absurd” to assume that the controlling factor for temperature changes in the complex three-dimensional climate is the small contribution of CO2. He notes the evidence from the Antarctica Vostok ice core that showed cooling preceded decreases in CO2 during the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years. For the paleoclimatic record going back 600 million years, “there is no suggestion of any correlation with carbon dioxide at all”, he added.

Richard Lindzen is a long-time climate denier who has been refuted many times over the years. His own colleagues at MIT refute his stance:

http://climate-science.mit.edu/mit/paoc-faculty-fact-check-mit-colleague-on-climate-science

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump/

 

But if you read his argument he's saying that because there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere it cannot cause large changes in warming. It's a logical fallacy that small inputs cannot lead to large outputs. It's like arguing that small amounts of cyanide in water can't kill a person because there's just so much water. However, cyanide can be toxic at 0.5 mg/L (0.00005%) and lethal above 3 mg/L (0.0003%) (link).

  • TBH 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...