2011-04-19 06:44:25launching Lindzen Illusions
Dana Nuccitelli

We're set to launch Lindzen Illusions using the quotes from his recent radio interview.  Call dibs if you want to do a post responding to one of these quotes transcribed by James (no particular order):

1) "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995." (combine with #12)

2) "You have to remember, this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what has been established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter."

3) "In the North Pole, you don’t have a [ice] cap, you have sea ice; it’s very variable. And as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean, you know, again your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication."

4) "The crucial thing is sensitivity: you know, what do you expect a doubling of CO2 to do? If it's only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone." (combine with #9)

5) "[Emissions cuts] would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they'd be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man [...] Your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases."

6) "The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone [cut emissions] in the whole world it wouldn't make a lot of difference." (Dana)

7) "[CO2 limits are] a heavy cost for no benefit, and it's no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I mean, what's the point of that?" (Dana)

8) "For Australia to act now is, you know, a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone."

9) "If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened. [...] But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is: is what we've seen so far suggesting that you have more than that, and the answer is no." (combine with #4)

10) "The models do say you should have seen 2-5 times more [warming] than you've already seen, you know, you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you've seen, but some mysterious process has cancelled part of it." (Dana)

11) “OK, if nothing else changed, adding the amount of CO2 that we have added thus far should account for maybe a quarter of what we have seen, we have added some other greenhouse gases, methane, fluorocarbons, freons, this sort of thing, and that should bring one to perhaps 0.5 C.” (Dana)

12) "There's not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increase in temperature [...] This is pretty tiny; it's a fraction of a degree." (combine with #1)

13) “…..I mean I think that even Flannery acknowledged that Australia do this will have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia’s output during that millennium was increasing exponentially.”

14) “….oh I think [global warming alarm] will definitely fall into, you know, the category of popular delusions.  People will look at wonder at this age and wonder how science broke down, and in a period of technological advance that the public could be swayed by arguments that make no sense, and get hysterical over it.”

15) “For a lot of people it is also something I call “the quest for cheap virtue”, people need a cause…and they sorta feel puffed up by having a cause like saving the Earth, and they don’t really care that they are hurting people, that they may be involved in an immoral cause, and so on, they’re perfectly happy to just go along with it because they were told it’s virtuous.”

2011-04-22 03:01:181989
Dana Nuccitelli

Quotes from a talk Lindzen gave in 1989 which I suggest combining with the new quotes to show Lindzen has been consistently wrong for over 20 years.

"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of  greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small"

"Urbanization also creates  problems in interpreting the temperature record, he said.  There is  the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming  over cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example."

"The trouble is that the earlier data  suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880.  The entire record would more likely be saying that the  rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree...I would say, and I don't think I'm going out on a very big limb, that the data as we have it does not support a warming" suggest combining with #1 and #12

"What we have is data that says that maybe [warming] occurs, but it's within the noise....Climate inherently has a natural variability that is often attributed to possible variations in solar output, volcanic dust, etc.  However, Professor Lindzen highlighted a more fundamental source of natural variability.  "The point we have to keep in mind is that without any of this at all our climate would wander--at least within limits." need to find a recent 'natural variability' quote

"He said that the models showing that warming will occur with  increasing CO2 predict after-the-fact (post-predict) that since the 19th century we should have seen between about one and two degrees of
warming." included with #10 and 11 in LI #1

"It is interesting that before this last appearance of 'greenhouse warming' (1970 to present), there were actually quite a log of books on the coming ice age.  Now a new set of books on the coming warming are hitting the stands."

"Professor Lindzen said that in 1983 a panel of the National Academy of Sciences recommended a technique to validate climate models known as "fingerprinting"--efforts to find at least regional effects in modeling that are correct.  "This has turned out to be a disaster in methodology, because all the models differ even in their signs [directions] of predicted change, and they don't even agree on these features for the present climate.  "The only thing they agree on is the occurrence of enhanced warming at high latitudes.  This has been a period of almost steady cooling in those latitudes--exactly the opposite to what one would have expected from climate theory."

"Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, except for one form which isn't a greenhouse gas: clouds.  Clouds themselves as liquid water are as important to the infrared budget as water vapor.  Both swamp by orders of magnitude all the others.  With CO2 one is talking about three watts per square meter at most, compared to a hundred or more watts per square meter for water." suggest combining with #4 and 9

"In the current models, for reasons that puzzle almost everyone, the cloud feedbacks are positive rather than negative."

"On the planet the most wonderful constituent is water with its remarkable thermodynamic properties.  It's the obvious candidate for the thermostat of our system, and yet in most of these models, all water-related feedbacks are positive.  I don't think we would have existed if that were true." suggest combining with #4 and 9

"All of you know that the greenhouse warming has become a 'happening'--some would say a circus.  It has engaged us in a realm of argument that is in some ways foreign to us." He criticized editorials that simultaneously state that we don't know whether warming will occur, but that we shold nonetheless undertake "virtuous things"--altered energy policy, forestation, etc.  To call for action, he said, "has become a litmus test of morality....It seems to me that if science doesn't have integrity, it isn't of much use to people." suggest combining with #14 and 15