• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

Here is one from the Obama camp.

The list of international politicians and erstwhile greens who have become apostates of the carbon cult is growing every day.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

did you actually read this open letter? this sounds like a child wrote it:

"Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere."
 
lectro, link to your fucking sources and make them better formatted for reading
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
lolol

i'll keep coming back any time. at least pourman had the balls/brains/maturity to post actual science and knowledge, even if it was gross misinterpretation. you can save everyone time and just post links instead of copy/pasting forwards you're getting in your 'electronic mail'. better yet, just send them to your grandchildren so they can laugh and delete it
 
Here is the Nobel Winning Physicist you just labeled as "child like"

I stand with this guy...a Titan in the predominant field of science, ie., "the best and the brightest"

As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a "religion" and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing." Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated "I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker [Mario Molina] picked and chose when he gave his talk." Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."[15][16]
 
he's 84 yrs old, (82 when he said all this stuff) and a physicist who made an off hand comment.

sorry, i'll feel free to discount his opinion on a field of science completely different than his. you're so far out of your realm when talking about this. you're operating in this fantasy world where a science degree in anything = supreme knowledge expert.

even then, you pick and choose kooks and wingnuts who make vague claims that "support" (sometimes barely) your position
 
Last edited:
Hahaha...it's cool, and it's gonna get a lot cooler.

I look forward to the diminishing of future call outs and a dramatic increase in "sandwiches served"

Time is on my side. Your theory is headed for the shit can will one day be laughed at as "the stuff of midgets and clowns"..."flat earthers! Oh, irony of ironies!"

I love it!
 
irony? I don't think you understand what that word means.
 
so you also are unclear on the definition of irony, then

Oh I understand precisely...and I'll stick with the older and wiser...he's seen this socialist clap-trap horsey-shit before...certainly prefer to that as opposed to rolling with some snot faced college kids.
 
Last edited:
Didn't see this linked. Pretty good profile article on Lindzen from the Weekly Standard. It is more of a profile than an opinion piece...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html

Gotta love a free thinking wise man!

Excerpt:


When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and sundry other climate “alarmists,” as Lindzen calls them, you may find yourself a bit surprised. If you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittle-flecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short of grandfatherly.
Granted, Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and .  .  . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.

Richard Lindzen was born in 1940 in Webster, Massachusetts, to Jewish immigrants from Germany. His bootmaker father moved the family to the Bronx shortly after Richard was born. Lindzen attended the Bronx High School of Science before winning a scholarship to the only place he applied that was out of town, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, New York. After a couple of years at Rensselaer, he transferred to Harvard, where he completed his bachelor’s degree and, in 1964, a doctorate.
Lindzen wasn’t a climatologist from the start—“climate science” as such didn’t exist when he was beginning his career in academia. Rather, Lindzen studied math. “I liked applied math,” he says, “[and] I was a bit turned off by modern physics, but I really enjoyed classical physics, fluid mechanics, things like that.” A few years after arriving at Harvard, he began his transition to meteorology. “Harvard actually got a grant from the Ford Foundation to offer generous fellowships to people in the atmospheric sciences,” he explains. “Harvard had no department in atmospheric sciences, so these fellowships allowed you to take a degree in applied math or applied physics, and that worked out very well because in applied math the atmosphere and oceans were considered a good area for problems. .  .  . I discovered I really liked atmospheric sciences—meteorology. So I stuck with it and picked out a thesis.”
And with that, Lindzen began his meteoric rise through the nascent field. In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process. Before his 40th birthday, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In the mid-1980s, he made the short move from Harvard to MIT, and he’s remained there ever since. Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.
 
I love it how someone winning a Nobel Prize is instant validation of crockpot stuff but being a snot-nosed college grad (You realize nearly everyone of consequence who could weigh in on climate change, even the legitimate skeptics, is a snot-nosed college grad, right?) is instantly written off.
 
Lindzen? Are you kidding?

"Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s 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 earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0
 
Last edited:
Since you smart ass lads love to look at the resumes of sceptical...how bout we at the near comical collection of the IPCC's initial 25 authors who have received the good bureaucrats seal of approval.

Talk about a rag tag collection:

Regular readers are familiar with the strategy, especially of late. Cite, quote or otherwise link to credentialed scientists who disagree with what is increasingly being revealed to be the religious rantings of the Church of Chicken Little and watch those same scientists be belittled, attacked and otherwise ridiculed by that Church's glassy-eyed (and easily led) followers.

What I've attempted to do, since heretical scientists are so quickly and easily maligned by the global warming zealots, is find out more about who the IPCC scientists are. I'm having some trouble doing so. Imagine that. I did however find this piece that I believe to be revealing:

"The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"

First and foremost, Prof. Reiter believes, the IPCC is a creature of government that meets governmental needs and abides by governmental strictures, and does so without public scrutiny. In contrast, studies conducted under the more open auspices of the U.S. government's Global Climate Change Research program, for example, are entirely in the public domain.

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.

"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

"The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that -- it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung."

The more one digs, the more one looks into what the global warmingologists are really all about, the less likely one will be stung by the lies, the ad hominems, the fear-mongering, the deceit.

Will you succumb and be stung by lies because they're presented auspiciously as "civil and reasoned" thought? Don't be a fool and recognize these people for what they are.

Hucksters.

Chortle and snort yourself, midge.
 
climate science is socialist now?

In theory. In practice the plans the IPCC back are deeply unethical and immoral as regards the anticipated economic hardships that will be placed on developing countries.

* all because the global mean temperature rose 1/2 of a single degree over the last 100 years.
 
"Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from oil interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC.[2]"

"However, he has become infamously embarrassing for MIT over the last decade as a member of the Bjørn Lomborg "It's not that bad!" school of global warming. Though Lindzen fully accepts AGW, he claims that predictions made by other climatologists' models are "alarmist" and that temperatures will increase by less than one degree Celsius."
 
i also love that the 'article' refers to the internet as "the World Wide Web"
You must love the IPCC reports then..full of that kind of BS.

Here's one of my favorites from IPCC report AR5 (final draft). When estimating the impact of solar changes on earth climate, this is their executive summary.

Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from 1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower than the prior two. This likely led to a small negative RF of -0.04 (-0.08 to -0.00) W m–2 between 1986 and 2008. The best estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (0.00 to 0.10) W m–2. This is substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing estimates

They use solar cycle minimums to estimate the entire level of solar change during recent solar cycles. Now does that make any sense? That's like putting a kiddy coaster next to Top Thrill Dragster and saying they're just slightly different because the bottoms are about the same when you line them up. The actual satellite data they are using differs by more than the observed change in earth temperature too BTW, how's that for reliability.

But you got to give it to them. They don't really outright "lie" because throughout these documents, they always use "our best estimate"...choice of estimation very biased.

You will love the discussion on the 15-year hiatus in temperature changes.

Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.
This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.

Admit the 15 year hiatus. That's a start because they have no choice and it's counter all their fancy models.

Hiatus periods of 10–15 years can arise as a manifestation of internal decadal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced trend. Internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of trends over periods as short as 10–15 years for long-term climate change.

Admit there are large internal climate variations...enough to eliminate the entire contribution of 15 years of GHGs. Think about that.

Owing to sampling limitations, it is uncertain whether an increase in the rate of subsurface-ocean heat uptake occurred during the past 15 years. However, it is very likely2 that the climate system, including the ocean below 700 m depth, has continued to accumulate energy over the period 1998–2010

Love these ones. We don't in fact know if oceans continued heat uptake by actual measurement, but it's very likely because...well it just is.

The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations

Combined their models simulated a lot of warming (see previous IPCC report AR4) but some of their models "tend" to overestimate warming due to GHGs? I'm just a moron reading the actual report like probably no one else on this board, but are they not saying they may not be able to accurately model 15 years of change of GHGs?

But the winner in this chapter so far is the revelation that.....up to now they had never included the carbon cycle in their modeling.

An important development since the AR4 is the more widespread implementation of ESMs which include an interactive carbon cycle.

Earlier they are less....wishy washy about it not being included so it's not "more widespread", it just wasn't done much. Now...again I'm just a moron, but when modeling the effects of global CO2, shouldn't the carbon cycle regulating it be included? That's sort of science 101 (about the same as statistical significance). This paragraph nearly made me fall out of my chair.

Carbon cycle model evaluation is limited by the availability of direct observations at appropriately large spatial scales. Field studies and eddy-covariance flux measurements provide detailed information on the land carbon cycle over short-timescales and for specific locations, and ocean inventories are able to constrain the long-term uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean (Sabine et al., 2004; Takahashi et al., 2009). However the stores of carbon on the land are less well-known, even though these are important determinants of the CO2 fluxes from land-use change. ESM simulations vary by a factor of at least six in global soil carbon (Anav et al., 2013; Todd-Brown et al., 2013) and by a factor of four in global vegetation carbon, although about two-thirds of models are within 50% of the uncertain observational estimates (Anav et al., 2013).

So....they don't really understand the carbon cycle? That was stunning. Even I assumed they had a better fix on the CO2 dynamics than that. They are just assuming things from the atmospheric observations...assuming. That's not science.

All of this is directly from the IPCC reports. It's full of....we don't really know but our best estimates are that it's a major problem that'll change global temperatures a fraction of a degree. (basically 0.2%K). Fair enough but that's what the state of the science is. It's a lot of interesting research, but THEY ADMIT full of holes.

Like Linus Pauling years ago at Wake, I think most of the change is solar with a secondary driver making up 10-15% (which was his statement, not mine). However, that driver could be anything at this point, we just don't know. Too much politics and activism interfering to tell.
 
Last edited:
Just stop dude.

"Some other stuff he's been wrong about:

-Claiming that the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak."[5]

-Satellite measurements showing no warming.[6]

-Decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an "old view.")[7]

-Solar and volcanic forcings were severely downplayed to fudge data.[8]

-Misrepresenting the link between warming and hurricanes.[9]"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top