The Environment

nic said:
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. 
Click to expand...


Yeah I just watched the weather and they are expecting Ian to be a cat 4 by the time it hits landfall/FL.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
How many other scientists believe this compared to the opposite?

 
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.  
Click to expand...
Sure.  

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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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).

 
Back
Top