The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An important essay by Richard Lindzen > Comments

An important essay by Richard Lindzen : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 26/10/2018

Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
Dear Don,

Never heard of the bloke so first port of call was his Wikipedia page. It do not inspire confidence.

"The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper."

When you are forced admit to stupid mistakes in your own paper it isn't a great look except to someone like Hasbeen.

Why should I bother any further?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 26 October 2018 7:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux

In science terms, the papers written by Lindzen are quite old, climate science has come a long way since Lindzen has retired.
In the past when researching climate change Lindzen's name has cropped up as a scientist receiving financial support from fossil fuel companies.
Quote:

"In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying."

In 2004, Lindzen wanted to make a 50-to-1 bet that by 2024 the Earth would be cooling, his bet was not taken up, lucky for him he would have lost! You do not need a thermometer to know temperatures are increasing, thawing permafrost tells the story.

From:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen#Linzden.27s_Betting_Challenge_on_Global_Warming

A Newsweek article is about how some climate scientists were bought:

From:

http://www.newsweek.com/peabody-energy-coal-company-backs-climate-change-deniers-470803
Posted by ant, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:16:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our big problems are twofold. First we have convince Abbott and his idiot mates that climate change is real, and second we have to get the Labor idiots to change their minds on nuclear power. We are going to run very low on dispatchable power once the current coal fired power stations are closed down. I doubt there will be enough gas available to make up the difference and anyway, gas also produces copious amounts of CO2, a fact which seems to have been overlooked by all the brains. There some bloody dreamers out there.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:42:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another point I would make which also seems to have been overlooked by the cognoscenti is the fact that it takes a relative small amount of energy to raise the temperature of frozen snow, ice and tundra up to melting point and 13.5 times as much energy to actually melt it. We have been going through the first stage for the past couple of hundred years, but we have now entered the next stage, so for a while the rate of increase in average temperature might slow down a bit. After that the rate will increase.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David. Don't know why you bother! The decision makers are afflicted with the same Sargent Schultz syndrome as Hasbeen.

Or are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, like the scientist Don quotes? And along as the current crowd and their mates opposite control outcomes, we will continue to be the captive market they have arranged for us. Be it the fossil fuel companies or the business barons with special interests in renewables?

Ably aided and abetted by a US admin, that has prohibited any meaningful research into thorium as a future fuel!

Because if we had MSR thorium as a done deal? Both the fossil fuel industry would be out of business and big nuclear would have to declare bankruptcy.

All of which are, self evidently, vastly more important to Don and his mate Hasbeen than whether or not, THEIR VERY OWN GRANDKIDS, INHERIT AN INHABITABLE PLANET!?

The absolute bewilderment is compounded by the fact that, Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet, is vastly cleaner, safer and cheaper than coal! Moreover, all of the money we currently earn from coal exports could be doubled/trebled by the sale of reticulated energy, made in nuclear waste burning MSR thorium power plants.

The undersea cable that sends power both ways to Tasmania, could be replicated several dozen times over and send predetermined fixed cost power to dozens of far larger state entities. And with carbon-free power that the coal and current nuclear technology, can't hold a candle to.

Other than that, we can mass produce and export factory-built modules as waste to biogas plants or as miniaturized thorium powered power plants. And earns squillions every which way as we are paid annual billions by other folks to safely dispose of their waste.

If one was limited to arguing on the economic or business case alone. The opponents, wouldn't get a look in, let alone a foot in the door!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 27 October 2018 9:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

A reference I have often provided in relation to the increase in temperature is by Anton Vaks, his team found that 1.5C over pre-industrial times would see permafrost rapidly thaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71YvYqJWQc

Not only are a number of skeptical scientists funded by fossil fuel corporations; but, their studies are flawed:

http://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/?fbclid=IwAR1bJQlMJmozkxnysxGscIVdBM4Gs-vnGdbgoFZtCxLlNryfa2MCRX-GYxY

Quote:

"Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post."

Likewise, the work of Lindzen has been repudiated, by subsequent research:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
Posted by ant, Saturday, 27 October 2018 9:51:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy