At the ICCC4 conference yesterday, I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Richard Lindzen give his keynote address at the luncheon. As always, he made some very salient points.
I took this photo from my Blackberry and just moments later emailed Dr. Lindzen to ask for a copy of the presentation while he was still speaking. He graciously provided it. and you’ll find the link to it below.
Lindzen_Heartland_2010 (PDF)
Live web streaming coverage at Pajamas Media here for today’s speeches.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jay says:
May 18, 2010 at 10:13 am
Regarding Johnneythelowery’s comment as the AGW hypothesis is a way to address peak oil. If getting us off of imported oil were the goal of the AGW folks, then the Kerry bill would not be full of all kind of cap and trade give-aways for the Goldman Sachs and Millenium Investment crowd. The government would just put a 10-20% (and rising) tax on only IMPORTED oil or gas. This would spur domestic production and discourage imports. But NO, that is not the real goal. It will be interesting to see what press coverage the conference gets in the US.
-Jay
————————————————————————————-
Jay: The governments are buying this B/S. Are they buying the actual B/S or buying the power that comes with it? There has to be a plan of action, a contingency, outlined by think tanks and presented to the Highest Govt. level, about ‘peak oil’ and the same goes for plans to deal with scenarios such as if Saudi oil is detonated by Iran, Straight of Hormuz shut, Suez shut effectively bringing Peak Oil from the distant future to now. Saying ‘we’re going to invent something to replace oil’ is not a plan. The case for AGW CO2 was thoroughly debunked years ago. What i’m saying is: the CO2 response is very likely similar or the same as the ‘peak oil’ response. The NET effect is the same.
I’m not skeptical . I ‘know’ AGW is B/S.
Joel Shore says:
May 19, 2010 at 10:24 am
commenting on:
jakers says:
May 18, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“… we are well below a doubling, less than half way there, so we should have seen less than 0.5C warming vs his claim of 0.7C to date.”
You are assuming a linear relationship. It is logarithmic.
Bart says (commenting on jakers’ numbers):
That’s a fairly minor correction. At values of 280ppm pre-industrial and 390 ppm now, we are 39% above pre-industrial levels. This corresponds to being 48% to a doubling on a log-scale (calculation: [log(390/280)/log(2)]*100%).
“”” Bart says:
May 19, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Joel Shore says:
May 19, 2010 at 10:24 am
commenting on:
jakers says:
May 18, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“… we are well below a doubling, less than half way there, so we should have seen less than 0.5C warming vs his claim of 0.7C to date.”
You are assuming a linear relationship. It is logarithmic. “””
I’m assuming (dangerous thing) from all the above that Bart said this:-
“”” Bart says:
………..
You are assuming a linear relationship. It is logarithmic. “””
So we have Global mean surface Tmperature: T = T0 + cs.Log((CO2)/CO2)0) where if Log is base 2, then cs = “Climate Sensitivity” and T0 was the Temperature (mean global surface) when CO2 had the value (CO2)0.
I’d like to see either observed data; or real Physics theory that asserts that.
In my opinion the observations are a better fit to a function of the form: y = exp(-1/x^2) ; properly scaled of course.
All that need be done is to keep the link http://realzoldek.hu/dok/PeteriLaszlo/Klima/2006-10-29-MiskolcziFerenc-Klima-cikk-angol.pdf
to Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” circulating (QJHMS, Vol III, No.1,January-March 2007, pp.1-40).
This is the truth, laws and constants showing that water vapor and CO2 are in equilibrium on Earth. No matter how much or little CO2 is put into the atmosphere, there is always balance. James Hansen, and the rest of the preachers in the church of agw take note. The truth is out and will no go away. Your days of lying out loud about agw are numbered. Dr. Miskolczi’s findings shall prevail. Pass the link along.
HankHenry,
I would have rather seen McIntyre not even engage in the legal debate at all and simply say he was not a legal scholar and no comment but he came out almost like a Mann apologist in his defense. I found that odd and certainly not helping his case or anyone else. It is not his reluctance to go after Mann as much as comments like this that bother me,
“…and even offered Mann my support.”
Mann has done everything he can to ridicule and smear McIntyre and here Steve is trying to play what comes off as the naive nice guy. All this does is give those supporting the team more Propaganda that there is nothing really wrong with Mann’s work.
I believe Steve could have achieved the ends he was seeking by simply stating that he does not have the background to comment on legal matters. That would be honest and he would not have to come off as in support of Mann.
George E Smith says:
The approximately-logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 concentration for the regime that we are in comes from line-by-line radiative calculations. Basically, it is because we are in the regime where the dominant absorption line (around 15 microns) is already saturated in the middle but not in the wings. And, it is actually a little bit faster than a logarithm, but the logarithm is a reasonably good approximation. At low CO2 concentrations, the dependence is closer to linear…and then at considerably higher concentrations, weaker absorption bands come into play and the dependence is something approximating a square root.
#
#
Joel Shore says:
May 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“This corresponds to being 48% to a doubling on a log-scale (calculation: [log(390/280)/log(2)]*100%).”
True enough. But, Lindzen did not say there had been 0.7 degC warming over the last century. He said, and I quote: “This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years.”
Poptech,
It *is* surprising to me to see people jumping up to vouch for Mann. What use is it to Mann to be vouched for by people don’t know him except to have read his papers? McIntyre just would prefer to see Mann dissected by his scalpels rather than bludgeoned by the Attorney General’s club.
What is it with you AGW types? A few very reputable scientists start to openly challenge the AGW paradigm, and you get all flustered, seemingly, offended. What’s up with that? Help me understand. Are you afraid you might just be wrong about the whole pseudo-hypothesis of AGW? Are you afraid public opinion will start to force government & private funding away from AGW research? Or are you going to publicly take the high-ground, and just say your afraid for the future of humanity? Can any of you honestly say why the vitrolic response to folks like Lindzen, Ball and others? You AGW types seem a bit thin skinned to me. This all seems backwards. AGW skeptics are the clear minority I believe, and my personal experience is that AGW types are tend to be liberal! What’s up with that, too?