Josh livetoons the 2018 Lindzen lecture – which demolishes climate claims

Our intrepid cartoonist, Josh was at the GWPF sponsored Richard Lindzen lecture, and has this to contribute. If you have not read it yet, WUWT carried it a couple of days ago:

Richard Lindzen Lecture at GWPF: ‘Global Warming for the Two Cultures’

Josh also recommends this article from James Delingpole “…who I sat next to while drawing these notes on the brilliant GWPF annual lecture given by Richard Lindzen.”

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve O
October 11, 2018 11:31 am

We have to start thinking what kind of world we’re going to leave for Keith Richards.

Thomas Ryan
Reply to  Steve O
October 12, 2018 7:21 am

Beauty.

John
October 11, 2018 12:07 pm

What does “livetoon” mean? I have failed to turn up a definition via google.

Reply to  John
October 11, 2018 12:21 pm

I think it means drawing a cartoon as the event unfolds

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  John
October 11, 2018 4:34 pm

You have heard of contemporaneous notes?

Josh draws contemporaneous jokes.

Editor
Reply to  John
October 12, 2018 6:17 am

There are several examples if you used the WUWT search box. https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=livetoon

Google hasn’t completely suppressed it, see |livetoon site:wattsupwiththat.com|. Looking for |livetoon josh| will give you http://cartoonsbyjosh.co.uk/ which, curiously, doesn’t display “livetoon,” but you should read it anyway. Odd, I don’t see “livetoon” in the HTML either.

RockyRoad
October 11, 2018 12:20 pm

SEA LEVELS: I’m waiting to fill my boots… I (sic) may be some time

Perhaps “It” instead?

Otherwise, very good, Josh!

John Dunton-Downer
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 11, 2018 12:59 pm

the use of “I” is, I think, a reference to one Titus Oates of Capt Scott’s doomed team on Antartica. While they were waiting in their tent to freeze to death he famously said something like “I need to step outside.” Followed by the immortal line, “I may be some time.” And, of course, never returned.

Questing Vole
Reply to  John Dunton-Downer
October 11, 2018 1:16 pm

Titus Oates? I don’t think so, although he was an alarmist too, in his way.

John Dunton-Downer
Reply to  Questing Vole
October 11, 2018 1:25 pm

Sorry! Right. Laurence Oates. But his nickname was Titus. That’s where my memory took me.

TomRude
October 11, 2018 12:41 pm

Among those who dutifully report what they do not understand are journalists/activists such as Nicole Mortillaro officiating for the CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-climate-change-1.4857557
In her latest agitprop fear mongering about Jet Stream, quoting the career alarmist Feltmate and the ever present Jennifer Francis.
Poor Nicole should at least once in a while check jet streams at http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html and learn how to debunk Francis theory.

Lance
Reply to  TomRude
October 11, 2018 1:29 pm

oh timing…my sister just sent me that cbc link!! I had to laugh at her…and provided her some better/suitable links…!

TomRude
Reply to  Lance
October 11, 2018 7:23 pm

And what is remarkable is that this Feltmate/Francis Mortillaro piece is pulled out of a hat on time for the latest hurricane claiming that hurricanes Florence and Harvey stalled due to jet stream meandering, another preposterous statement… and O miracle hurricane Michael did not stall and quickly moved through. So they’ll have to invent another monster narrative blaming the jet stream for that too without contradicting their previous statements…

SocietalNorm
Reply to  TomRude
October 12, 2018 9:09 pm

Why do you think they don’t have to contradict their previous statements?

ren
Reply to  TomRude
October 12, 2018 2:08 am

Even better to observe in the autumn-spring period the circulation in the lower stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-330.14,94.83,342

ren
Reply to  TomRude
October 12, 2018 2:32 am

Pay attention to the influx of cold air over the Great Lakes in a few days.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/10/17/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-83.86,48.31,519

ren
Reply to  ren
October 12, 2018 3:05 am

Note the current temperature in the north-central US.
comment image

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
October 11, 2018 2:20 pm

Politics, money, peer pressure and the lying, fact-free, fake news media’s censorship (BBC) have completely corrupted science. Climate change has turned science/engineering/economics into full time bullshit factories.

The Radiative Green House Effect theory contains a fatal flaw.

For RGHE to perform as advertised requires the earth’s surface to radiate upwelling LWIR as an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity at 16 C, 289 K, 396 W/m^2. (TFK_bams09)

The contiguous presence of atmospheric molecules participating in non-radiative heat transfers through conduction, convection, latent renders impossible such BB LWIR, the effective surface emissivity being 0.16, i.e. actual 63 W/m^2 / ideal 396 W/m^2.

The LWIR upwelling 396 W/m^2 does not exist – the 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop “warming” the surface and atmosphere does not exist – and the global warming and climate changes that are attributed to carbon dioxide do not exist.

Three decades of careers, books, papers, research, seminars all go straight in the trash bin and the trillion-dollar climate change industry is instantly unemployed.

No big deal, just some minor changes.

Hey, what can you say? It’s SCIENCE!!! Have any yourself? Bring it!

Hokey Schtick
Reply to  Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
October 11, 2018 10:03 pm

Gobbledegook. So brilliant yet so unreadable, at the same time. What?

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
October 12, 2018 9:31 am

I think the Sky Dragon Slayers have just gone full Post-Modern…

John in Oz
October 11, 2018 3:37 pm

The ABC interviewed Mr Lindzen on 11 Oct (in Australia) and, paraphrasing, was informed that in his opinion there was no problem with the little warming since the Little Ice Age.

They then had David Karoly on and his first comment, again paraphrasing, was that everything that Lindzen had just stated was wrong. He then proceeded to prove that his Armageddon-view of the state of the climate was true using the ‘highest temps ever recorded over the last few years’ mantra without any reference to how large the increase has been, nor that temps have been increasing since the LIA. My cherry tree is just in flower but he seems to have found some ready to pick.

One would have thought that any 2 climate-savvy scientists would have some areas of agreement, regardless of their overall opinions of the future of climate. For Karoly to immediately dismiss everything that Lindzen had explained is a sure sign that he has a misplaced sense of his own importance and knowledge.

Unfortunately for Australia (and the World), Karoly is in a position to influence our gullible, spineless politicians.

Bulldust
Reply to  John in Oz
October 11, 2018 5:23 pm

People still watch the ABC? I haven’t switched on commercial TV in years except to watch the footy or cricket (if I want to snooze in the afternoon). I’m sure the average punter doesn’t give a proverbial tinker’s about climate change, so they’re only preaching to the choir.

The ABC needs to be weened off the Government teat.

Mike
Reply to  John in Oz
October 11, 2018 6:50 pm

Karoly is a self important climate bashing little prick who’s probably fantasizing about getting laid by one of his wide eyed uni students while he points to the sky yelling ”My end is coming” …I mean… the end is coming!!!!”

LdB
Reply to  John in Oz
October 11, 2018 7:48 pm

I watch the ABC and had never heard of Karoly and had to look up who the hell you were talking about. So I am saying not very famous at all 🙂

Editor
Reply to  LdB
October 12, 2018 7:24 am

WUWT has more than I’d ever care to read about him. 🙂 See https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=karoly

Hokey Schtick
Reply to  John in Oz
October 11, 2018 10:04 pm

These days, the most stupid stupid outranks the smartest smart.

nw sage
October 11, 2018 5:18 pm

The fact that Karoly simply dismissed all Lindsen’s points is proof in itself that he has no rational or logical argument refuting any of the points. Zero, NADA, Nothing! The technique is familiar – If you have no real argument that will work, simply shout louder. When that happens Lindzen’s points are made.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  nw sage
October 11, 2018 5:31 pm

Karoly is a nasty small minded man who will shout down anyone in a debate. He will just sit there, literally, shouting “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” I have to admit I deliberately do not tune in to anything on the ABC regarding climate. It is vile and nearly induces vomiting, esp when the likes of Karoly get airtime. I will admit, it has been a while since Karoly was wheeled out on national TV with all the recent hype in the Aussie media about the latest “We have only x years to save the planet!” reports from the IPCC.

Sadly Turncoat shafted Australia when he shafted Abbott. And Morrison shafted Turncoat, not a bad thing IMO. But with all this political gobshyte and knifing that’s been going on for 10 years or more voters who really can make a difference won’t bother leaving Australia to lean even further to the left.

Alan Tomalty
October 12, 2018 1:09 am

Lindzen stated
“Because the density of air decreases with height, the buoyant elements expand as they rise. This causes the buoy- ant elements to cool as they rise, and the mixing results in decreasing temperature with height rather than a constant temperature. ”

Weinstein stated
“It is the pressure drop with increasing altitude that causes the temperature to cool (adiabatic cooling),”

If both of these are true it seems to support the gravity theory of the greenhouse effect as espoused by Dr. Nikolov and others.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 12, 2018 1:20 am

The problem for Nikolov’s thesis is that clouds do warm the surface at night time vs no clouds therefore back radiation exists.

The problem for the GHG theory is that the earth has never experienced runaway local warming with monsoon events that force more water vapour.

Coeur de Lion
October 12, 2018 1:09 am

Only rich people are advocates of carbon dioxide reduction . There’s your cocktail party response

Frans Franken
October 12, 2018 2:15 am

Richard Lindzen stated in his lecture:

So be warned, what follows will require a certain amount of concentration. Evaporation from the oceans gives rise to water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor very strongly absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared. This is what we mean when we call water vapor a greenhouse gas. The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the surface to heat, and, as in a heated pot of water, convection sets on.

Moist air rises in surrounding drier air primarily because its specific weight [kg/m3] is lower. Water vapor H2O has molecular weight 18, nitrogen gas N2 (80% of dry air) has 28, oxygen O2 (20% of dry air) has 32 [g/mol]. Therefore a bubble of water vapor will rise in surrounding dry air, hence there is no need for any greenhouse effect to induce convection of evaporated surface water.
Correct me if i’m wrong.

Editor
Reply to  Frans Franken
October 12, 2018 6:07 am

There’s no need for evaporating water to fuel convection. A sunny morning heats the ground, which heats the air and once the temperature inversion is washed out, convection mixes with higher air and allows the wind there to come down ground level and morning breezes are the result.

OTOH, wind blowing over warm ocean evaporates water, and warm, moist air (given several other condition) can cause such strong convection that a hurricane forms.

Frans Franken
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 14, 2018 3:08 am

Ric,
0K but also the convection mechanisms you describe (sun-heated land, wind over warm water) do not involve nor require a greenhouse effect. So i don’t see a greenhouse effect as being relevant for convection to be brought about; contrary to Lindzen’s lecture where it seems to be presented as the engine for convection.

Alan Tomalty
October 12, 2018 9:32 pm

Lindzen stated

“In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specializing in abnormal psychology.”

Of course he was referring to the Australian response to the IPCC .

%d bloggers like this: