|
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.
Commenting on GGas issues has brought me closest to being fired, poisoned and stabbed on numerous occasions – all I really feel comfortable about saying here is, that in this matter, science and theology have melded.
#30 – MikeN,
This isn’t just an editorial. It is referring to the paper Lindzen & Choi 2009, which is peer reviewed.
Funny. The site called it an editorial. Let’s check.
Hmm…
Would you mind posting a link to the peer-reviewed paper? Seems the editorial claims there is one but provides neither the title nor the date nor the publication. All they cite is vague references to “[r]ecent papers in the peer-reviewed literature”
This Google Scholar search for Lindzen and Choi in 2009 for articles in environmental science came up with nothing even remotely related.
http://tinyurl.com/yz6ucje
Care to try your hand at googling? Or, are you just prepared to take the editorial at face value because you happen to agree with it?
BTW, Mike, on a topic from a prior thread, why exactly is it that you believe proxy data when it agrees with you, but not when it disagrees with you? You cited proxy data on a prior thread claiming that the little warm period was warmer than today. Since they did not have thermometers then, it must be done by proxy data. Further, all of the data was from the high and low arctic, none from lower latitudes, none from the southern hemisphere. Yet, you are prepared to believe insufficient proxy data when it supports your view, but not when global proxy data exist that show you are incorrect.
Climate skepticism is not your own idea. You don’t own it. You don’t need to take it personally if it turns out to be false. Reexamine the data in an objective way without preconceptions. You may be surprised to find that you’ve picked up a viral memeplex from the likes of ExxonMobil.
The “ize” have it when it comes to Global Warming:
Politized, Polarized, Propagandized, Monitized, & Merchantized…
It’s not about the environment anymore, is it being used to aide in some other plan…
…it’s been Agendized, and we’re all screwed!
They say this is the most important global warming paper. However, I would say even within the last month, this is more significant.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
Scott, I got the title from following the links in the editorial. Then Google gave some details. Try ‘Lindzen Choi 2009’, 2nd link.
As to the proxy data, I am basing my ‘belief’ on the preponderance of science prior to 1998. The IPCC had a Medieval Warm Period as part of their earlier reports. They didn’t consider it as violating the global warming theory.
Now I don’t believe the various studies because of the math that they have done in the studies. They are playing with data to get hockey sticks.
This idea that I am believing data that I agree with; I think this is what many scientists are doing, and that’s why they are failing to catch mistakes in their work, like using a proxy upside-down.
Kudos to Dr. Kaufman who is correcting his Arctic warming paper on that point.
ArianeB, how did RealClimate deliver a point by point rebuttal of a paper 3 1/2 years before it was published?
FWIW:
This MIT study would have had to been cleared by high level government before it ever got anywhere near our eyeballs..
There has been a gag order on “real” climate science & facts since at least 2002-2003 that i know of, and from what i’ve been told, much much longer that that..as they did not wish to alarm the public about what is happening and that all the money on the world wont stop it. (ie, they have no control over it)
That this study was allowed to wear the “MIT seal of approval” means that the BIG changes that are due during this time in the Solar system’s (and Earth’s) cycle are finally, just around the corner..
Remember, we are going to see the rare completion of some 4 major Earth-Time cycles all converging at the same time within the next two years.
The electromagnetic changes these convergences will bring to bear on the sun and all the planets in our solar system will be quite startling.
(-a 300% increase in Pluto’s atmospheric pressure even as it is moving *away* from the sun, would be the least startling effect thus far..)
-And if Betelgeuse goes supernova soon as is expected, it will cause a surge in the galactic power grid which should result in a brief [1-3week] increase in output of our Sun’s energy output..which wont be a fun affair. -though i’m sure our politicians will blame it on SUV’s.
With any luck, soon we should hear about some of the 2-3million submarine volcanoes that are playing a large role in acidification of the sea and it’s subsequent rise in temperature. –some 20k-30k of which, lie on the tectonic plate borders.
Maybe they will finally come clean and admit that sunspots [cycle] are one of the main drivers of our weather.
when the sun is quite, the earth’s protective magnetic bubble “quiets” as well..(reduces in strength) this allows a huge influx of cosmic particles which allow clouds to
form en mass..and cool the earth..
overlay solar minimums with [cold] weather data (and [mini] ice age data)
and it will stare you in the face as coldly as your wife would after seeing lipstick on your mug after unexpectedly coming home “late from work”
-anyway…they need to acknowledge that weather, the sun and the universe
are all electromagnetically related phenomena and that there are no isolated bodies in the universe before that ever happens…[imo]
-we’re all connected, as it were..
Don’t be last.. learn about our electric weather here:
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040917electric-weather.htm
and here:
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Weather
It’s all going to come out very soon anyways.. The universe [and the times] demand it.
-s
those who still believe the CO2 hoax, do yourself a favour, stop allowing yourself to be spoonfed BS as if you were still a toddler and learn how to read all the hard data off the satellites data yourself.
Until you do that, your nothing but a misguided mouthpiece who will always be someone who could care less about “trivial things like facts and the truth”
If i can learn it, so can you.
>the first few climate models did not include water vapor because they were “too hard to model.” After severe criticism, they added the water vaper ((computing power catching up with available funding???)) and low and behold==new calculations showed no changes to any
Indeed. I have a problem with the way the modelers hide the uncertainty in their models. Earlier version of MIT’s EPPA model let you change the values for clouds, ocean sensitivity, and aerosols, as part of the input, just like CO2 emissions. Now the models hide these variables inside the model.
The end result is that you can’t see how much of a difference is made by changing these values. Also, if you go to the Climate Explorer, and look at the model runs they have posted there, you won’t find any model runs with extreme predictions of warming. I wanted to analyze high warming model runs, and see if they were different from very low warming or cooling runs, and there were none to be found.
#40 MikeN,
You’re still citing climateaudit, Steve McIntyre’s blog??!!?
Steve McIntyre has no scientific training of any kind.
http://tinyurl.com/yld9wuq
#41 – MikeN,
Scott, I got the title from following the links in the editorial. Then Google gave some details. Try ‘Lindzen Choi 2009′, 2nd link.
You’re job to post the link. Thanks.
I would say a degree in mathematics constitutes scientific training. Some of the people in climate science are clearly in need of more mathematical training.
#35–obamaforever==hah, hah. Still upset about 911 Truthing huh?
Attack my position: Models are not proof. The modeling history is “suspect.” I’m agnostic on GW “causation” but see proof of it in ocean rise. Polluting our environment should be minimized as much as possible. The hard science on CO2 causes acid rain is therefore more relevant than any continuing argument about its role in GW.
Go!!!!!
can I suggest that there is 1 GAS that is REQUIRED..
OXYGEN..and at a PROPER % (percentage) to we can LIVE…
Breathing other sources of OXY, does NOT help us.
ps..expect some big earthquakes [maybe volcanoes] the next day or so.. the earth’s magnetosphere got walloped yesterday and lesser on the 23rd..
whenever you see huge fluxes in the bubble, it supercharges the planet with electrostatic energy which charges the earth’s tectonic system, which eventually must be purged to re-balance the earth’s energy field.
-usually within 24hrs..
As it is said, energy is never destroyed..only changed, transformed or transmuted..
[which of course means you should never worry about death. the energy that makes up your soul will continue on in a different form, or if you’ve been a real putz your whole life..sent back into a body that will eventually end up being a social worker for other ungrateful bastages like yourself.
-or a body that ends up working for ACORN [same difference..} 😮
-s
#50 ECA
Hey Einstein..
a simple observation would indicate your wrong..if we did not have these “other gases” our respiration would not function properly as the amount of co2 we breath in and in our bloodstream dictate our respiration rate..
not to mention that breathing pure oxygen is toxic as it would start “oxidizing” your tissues in short order..
-try harder next d00d..
-s
Soundwash:
High Kudos for your post #44! I don’t know about Betelgeuse or the magnetosphere, but I absolutely congratulate you on thinking outside the box and considering all the possibilities.
I never considered the rise in ocean pH being due to underwater volcanoes.
Now that’s given me something to think about!
Oh, if you want to see the earth’s magnetospheric “wallop” i was talking about, download the 10/24/2009 animation here:
there is a lesser one in the 10/23 animation too..
While your there..other things I study… DL the 01/15/2009 and note the almost “squarewave” wallop in the 15:00-15:30 time frame.
Why? well that is the exact same time span that fight 1549 experienced double engine failure and crash landed on the Hudson River back in January..(for which i saw the geese that were headed in it’s direction-however, I am a skeptic, but when new data presents itself…)
So what? you will find an extreme rectangular peak that goes off the chart if you DL animations for the other two commercial flights that went down over the summer..
They all look man made in relation to the regular background data stream
You will also find the same peak on july 19th when that earth size object impacted Jupiter…
I’ve got a dozen other “notables” that can be used for forecasting just by watching what “impacts” the earth’s magnetosphere, watching what the sun is doing and noting what “odd” celestial bodies happen to be passing through the solar system at the time..
last tidbit..
do you know a brown dwarf was sighted entering the system out by neptune back in 2007 i think it was…and that this same object came close enough this past august (around the 15th) to cause major bedlam for the inner planets, but somehow, something either changed it’s mass or “moved” it out of [our] danger..?
It will be passing back through in 2011…
Datamine and yea will find..
-s
From: Obamaforever
To: bobbo (I have my head-up so far up my ass concerning modeling I do not know what year it is said)
bobbo, you need to reread my explanation on how modeling works. I also gave an example on how modeling works in the real world.
In my example I used modeling software to determine the energy use of a building. How did I know that the modeling software worked? I compared the results of the modeling software with the actual billing history. The results and the history were the same (plus or minus a few percentage points).
bobbo, you should understand that I used weather date when I used the modeling software. And yes weather is not climate and my energy usage modeling is not nearly as complicated as modeling climate change. But like I said in my original post on modeling my energy use modeling and more complicated modeling is based on the same principles.
bobbo, you would not know a proof concerning modeling if it came up to you and bit you on your ignorant sorry ass.
Climate modeling is as close to a proof for climate change (with a nod to more information to help fine tune the modeling) as you are going to get. Do you understand, you twit.
Please, no more statements concerning modeling, bobbo. Your statements just show your stupidity on the subject.
Jump
#55–obamaetc==OK, I remember YOU now. Ha, ha.
So–directly on point: Does a prediction from a model prove the prediction will happen? Yes or no?
Further, as for instance in the climate model (sic as there are many of them==or even just a few but running with different variables?) how “proof worthy” is it if it cannot predict a 10 year midcourse reverse impact? “Trust us–the trend is the opposite from what you see” does not strike me as “proof.”
On your 911 Monkey on your Back==the most accurate, highly predictive, industry relied on, model still only models the inputs it is given. It proceeds like this: “If” — “Then”.
If the 911 Tower Collapse Model modeled all the “known” relevant variables and that model predicts the towers would fall just as they did, does that model negate any other contributory causes???? And the answer is no, because “Models are not proof.”
From: Obamaforever
To: asshole (you know who you are)
I suggest you reread what Occam’s razor principle means, retard!!!!!!!!!!
The input for the modeling of the 9/11 towers comes from the observable facts. Asshole, you seem to think that they pulled everything out of their ass when it came to what to put into the modeling the towers. This is what you do, retard.
I am guessing you would have someone sneaking into the towers to place bombs.
Occam’s razor would say that the bombs would be at the bottom of the list of possible reasons for why the towers went down. Modeling using the observable facts would be at the top of the list.
checkmate, asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Obamaforever
To: asshole
Your problem besides being an asshole is that you confuse weather with climate.
I suggest you read-up on how they model the weather and how they model the climate.
Asshole, I am afraid your mouth is overloading your brain. There is no known cure.
Well, there is one cure. What you do is walk into a cage with a hungry lion. You are covered in hamburger. You get the picture, asshole?
#58–Obamaetc==heh, heh. Yea, thats YOU. Can’t answer a direct question.
Don’t know that Occam’s Razor is not “proof” either. Silly to include it in any but the most casual ((as in relaxed as opposed to cause and effect)) conversations, and then only for a humorous pleasant effect.
How did I confuse weather with climate? Lets see: weather is forcasted and tested with predictions getting more firm and farther in the future. Climate is forcasted and so far the testing shows it to be completely inaccurate and unreliable but Occam’s razor says to trust it anyway?
Whats the matter Bucky==can’t answer any of the direct challenges? Lets see once again: how could this be modeled??? Heh, heh. Total Fail. Say–doesn’t Dungeons and Dragons use a lot of modeling? Is that where your faith springs from Bucky?
Split in two by Occam’s Razor–the leading edge of faulty modeling.
#48 – MikeN,
I would say a degree in mathematics constitutes scientific training. Some of the people in climate science are clearly in need of more mathematical training.
Mike Mike Mike … time for a little introspection on your part. You just put a bachelor’s degree in mathematics ahead of thousands of PhDs in related fields. Math isn’t even on the list.
And, a fucking bachelor’s degree??!!?
That makes me more qualified than Steve McIntyre. If you want to check on computer models, at least my bachelor’s is in computer science.
I would strongly suggest that you do some serious soul searching. You really don’t sound this stupid … most of the time.
Here’s a list of the fields that are relevant to climate science: astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.
Read it. Study it. Mathematics may be a prerequisite for some of these fields, but does not take the place of any of them. Search your feelings Mike. You know this to be true. You are totally biased and are not thinking clearly.
From: Obamaforever
To: asshole
My faith is based on science. Your faith is based on your thinking that you have universal knowledge. When someone presents you with a proof you say it is not proof. But you give no example of what you would believe would be an example of a “proof”.
Give me an example of what you think is “proof”, asshole.
You do not think too much of Occam’s razor is because you are thinking with your ass and not your brain.
Asshole, Occam’s razor works and your brain does not.
Again, give an example of a “proof” or shut the fuck up, retard.
P.S. You still do not know the difference between weather and climate, you ignorant piece of crap.
Knowledge of computer programming is also useful. It can help you locate flaws in other people’s papers if they release their code. That is how people can locate that a proxy was used upside-down by Mann and in the recent Kaufman warming paper.
Here elementary school math could have shown that a proxy was upside down, warmer in 1120 than 1220, when it should have been the other way around. Sometimes you need more detailed math to find the errors.
Put your computer science degree to use, and review some papers yourself.
Steve McIntyre in his spare time identified flaws that have been endorsed by the National Academy of Science Panel tasked with reviewing hockey stick reconstructions. The scientists in the field should have been grateful for the advancement of knowledge. Instead, they mock him for not being ‘in the club’
>You just put a bachelor’s degree in mathematics ahead of thousands of PhDs in related fields.
No, I put the results of Steve’s analyses, ahead of the results of the various PhDs whose work was being analyzed. What does it matter what degree a person has? It’s the work that should stand or fall on its own. I don’t hold to the view that we look at who has what degree and just trust them. Steve puts up code on his site for everything he does. If his education is so poor, then perhaps people should point out the flaws, rather than castigate him for not paying his apprentice fees.
MikeN,
Yes. You put the opinion (editorial) ahead of years of research by professionals who understand the complex issues of climate science.
And, I’m still waiting for that link to the peer reviewed article that the editorial claims exists.
Finally, why is it that all of these skeptics keep having ties to the fossil fuel industry? Do you not realize the huge influence this has? Do you not see a pattern? Where is the single unbiased scientist questioning anthropogenic climate change?
McIntyre worked for 30 years in mineral business[1], the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.[2] He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]
Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.
http://tinyurl.com/yld9wuq
MikeN,
Let me try another tack. You claim that it doesn’t matter where someone gets their funding. You claim that it doesn’t matter what the person’s field of expertise is. You claim that all of the work should be judged on its merit. So, answer the following:
Why is it that all of the skeptics are either A) not climate scientists (e.g. retired weathermen, mathematicians who are not qualified to teach high school math, U.S. senators*) or B) funded by the fossil fuel industry, or as is most common, both?
Do you not see a pattern here?
It rarely takes more than a couple of minutes of googling to learn that whoever is making the anti-climate-change statement of the week is yet another unqualified shill for ExxonMobil. If the funding doesn’t matter and the background doesn’t matter, where are the doubting climate scientists who aren’t funded by fossil fuels?
* Yes, I know this cuts both ways, Inhofe and Gore. You may also note that I don’t use Gore to make my points on climate change. That’s why. Gore is also not a scientist. He’s a great publicist and diplomat, but is never going to be the source of any climate science.
52,
and in the last 50 years Iv been on this planet, it HAS gotten harder to breath. and its not a medical condition.
FROM all the world sources, the pollutants that STAY in the air and those on the ground have increased.
And it isnt just Methane, CO2, Hydrogen, oxygen, and water vapor.
If ya dont listen NOW, will you when your candle dims?? or your COAL fires wont lite??
Just CAUSE we ship out Manufacturing facilities to HONG KONG/mexico/taiwan/indoneasia dont MEAN they dont pollute.
I REALLy dont think they are using the BEST practices and CLEAN up after themselves AS IS REQUIRED in the USA.
Go buy carbon credits and forget about Sulfur dioxide, Benzine and a BUNCH of others..
Al Gore and his like stand to profit handsomely, if this so-called “Clean Air” bill is pasted in Congress. He’s already got a huge portfolio in Carbon Credits, that will net him 100s of millions. I briefly saw this Tv spot ad, refuting the bill. And at the bottom, in plainly readable type (not tiny) was the url for the Petroleum Institute Org. Now, if they wanted to hide their involvement in this ad. They could has easily used a front group, nobody’s heard of. But being this damn obviously, tells me that secretly they want the bill to pass. Al Gore is part of this bunch, ya know? He’s got millions on Occidental Oil stock. And they’ve been pampering him for years. So he’s not out to bite the hand that’s been feeding him. His sudden concern for the environment, has to be more about creating a new means of getting rich, off of the rest of us. Oil and coal, isn’t going to go away. But we’ll just be told to pay even more for it. In order to save the world, and make Al Gore and friends stinking richer.
There’s even talk now that any evidence that GW might be reversing, or the earth showing signs of cooling off. Are just GW taking a “short break”. Oh, come on! So GW may have decided to go on vacation, eh?! And it’ll be back shorting, revived and refreshed, and more worse than ever. Isn’t anthropomorphizing weather? Claiming the climate can “take a break” from heating up, is NOT scientific! It’s just plain lunacy. The GW advocates don’t even bother to explain how their prediction models can allow for a so-called break or brief cooling spell. Just that they’re sure, it won’t last. So don’t relax the doomsday mantra, they’ve conjured up. Just believe, toss out all data to the contrary, and sign away your livelihoods.