• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE TWO CULTURES - Richard Lindzen

Steve Case said:
This lecture by Dr. Lindzen is almost 5,000 words long and a very good read:

GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE TWO CULTURES - Richard Lindzen
Click to expand...

I finally got around to reading it. It is simple enough for most people to understand if they shed the bias. I found this one of the most interesting remarks:

Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s successor at NASA’s New York shop, GISS, has remarked that ‘general statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media’. He went on to say that it takes only a few seconds’ thought to realise that the popular perceptions that ‘global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time‘ is ‘nonsense’.
​

Goes to support what I say about the pundits lying about what the scientists say.
 
Media_Truth said:
You can ignore the thousands and thousands of Climatologists that state that 1.5 or 2 deg C will have severe impacts around the world, if you want to. I will vehemently disagree, and accept the view of the entire scientific world. That wasn't the point I was making.
Click to expand...

Please show us the papers where they say that.

Please exclude what the pundits and blogs say. Produce an actual peer reviewed paper please.

Media_Truth said:
Lindzen's argument is totally disjunct. It basically goes like this.

1. Warming isn't happening because of greenhouse gases.
2. If warming is happening, it's no big deal.

This is a similar argument that may have been posed in the 1960s. (BTW, Lindzen was a tobacco denier also).
1. It's not proven that cigarettes cause cancer and other life-threatening diseases.
2. If cigarettes do cause cancer, it's no big deal.
Click to expand...
Not true. You obviously didn't read this work.
 
Media_Truth said:
Did he expose an uncomfortable truth, when he spoke up for the tobacco industry years ago?

Now with added irony Lindzen argues that we should be equally sceptical about both climate change and the link between smoking and cancer, but his argument can just as easily be turned around. If you accept Lindzen’s ‘impeccably logical’ view that the two arguments are comparable, you reach the conclusion that the link between human activity and climate change is now so well-established that it makes about as much sense to doubt it as to doubt the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, that is, no sense at all.

A notable fact about the professional climate sceptics is that many of them (Singer, Seitz, Milloy and so on), are also paid advocates for the tobacco industry, there’s no* evidence to suggest that Lindzen is acting from mercenary motives. It appears that he’s just an irresponsible contrarian as a matter of temperament.

Credibility up in smoke ? Crooked Timber
Click to expand...

Too bad your blog is a lie. What is left out of such propaganda is that this was about second hand smoke. Not smoking.
 
Media_Truth said:
You can ignore the thousands and thousands of Climatologists that state that 1.5 or 2 deg C will have severe impacts around the world, if you want to. I will vehemently disagree, and accept the view of the entire scientific world. That wasn't the point I was making.

Lindzen's argument is totally disjunct. It basically goes like this.

1. Warming isn't happening because of greenhouse gases.
2. If warming is happening, it's no big deal.

This is a similar argument that may have been posed in the 1960s. (BTW, Lindzen was a tobacco denier also).
1. It's not proven that cigarettes cause cancer and other life-threatening diseases.
2. If cigarettes do cause cancer, it's no big deal.
Click to expand...

The end of your post regarding tobacco relates to this only as the climate relates to optimal conditions to grow that plant.

A 1.5 to 2 degree climate change will have a severe impact. Cooling of less than that that occurred in the Little Ice Age period, from which the climate is still recovering, and that cooling caused famine and plague throughout Europe.

There has been warming of about .7 degrees across 2000 years. We have returned to a warmth roughly equal to the climate of 5000 years ago and are still cooler than the climate of 8000 years ago.

I'll retire in a few months and will move south. Again. I was born in Minnesota and will likely die while living in Florida, Georgia or South Carolina.

I'll admit that I have a bias that favors warming. Warm sand and cool drinks on a beach feeling a breeze like the caress of a soft hand seems more inviting than the "Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field" in early February.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please show us the papers where they say that.

Please exclude what the pundits and blogs say. Produce an actual peer reviewed paper please.


Not true. You obviously didn't read this work.
Click to expand...

I did the work, but you obviously didn't read my posts, before mouthing off. Lindzen said this in his conclusion.

Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.

He is nothing but a political hack idiot.
 
code1211 said:
People seem to thrive in warmer climates.

The rise of civilization occurred in a climate about a degree warmer than today.

Why does rational thought inspire dogmatic elites to stamp it out amid irrational shrieking and hate filled name calling?
Click to expand...

OK, tell that to the people who are living in cities that will be flooded. When hurricanes, that are much stronger and fiercer than anything we've ever seen, ravage our heavily populated areas. As wildfires get more and more uncontrollable in the Mountain West. As cropland becomes decimated by insects and blight, and the people who rely on those crops start going without food. Tell your children and grandchildren.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Too bad your blog is a lie. What is left out of such propaganda is that this was about second hand smoke. Not smoking.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have no problem providing a reputable link.
 
code1211 said:
I'll retire in a few months and will move south. Again. I was born in Minnesota and will likely die while living in Florida, Georgia or South Carolina.

I'll admit that I have a bias that favors warming.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, I grew up in outback Australia and I too have moved south - away from the tropics. It's unfortunate for the rest of the world that most of the highest-polluting countries lie at higher latitudes, with many citizens sharing the bias of supposing that warmer climate must be a good thing.
 
Media_Truth said:
OK, tell that to the people who are living in cities that will be flooded. When hurricanes, that are much stronger and fiercer than anything we've ever seen, ravage our heavily populated areas. As wildfires get more and more uncontrollable in the Mountain West. As cropland becomes decimated by insects and blight, and the people who rely on those crops start going without food. Tell your children and grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the four horsemen :lol:
 
Media_Truth said:
How did the climate change from over 100,000 years ago, affect life on earth? Which measuring technique did they use for the data from 100,000 years ago?
Click to expand...

It appears from what I've heard that much of the surface life on Earth thrives in warmer climates.

The measuring methods prior to the instrument record, again from what I've heard, are based on proxies.

What makes you ask? Better yet, why ask me?
 
code1211 said:
The end of your post regarding tobacco relates to this only as the climate relates to optimal conditions to grow that plant.

A 1.5 to 2 degree climate change will have a severe impact. Cooling of less than that that occurred in the Little Ice Age period, from which the climate is still recovering, and that cooling caused famine and plague throughout Europe.

There has been warming of about .7 degrees across 2000 years. We have returned to a warmth roughly equal to the climate of 5000 years ago and are still cooler than the climate of 8000 years ago.

I'll retire in a few months and will move south. Again. I was born in Minnesota and will likely die while living in Florida, Georgia or South Carolina.

I'll admit that I have a bias that favors warming. Warm sand and cool drinks on a beach feeling a breeze like the caress of a soft hand seems more inviting than the "Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field" in early February.
Click to expand...

Actually, the current temperature anomaly is at nearly 1 deg C. You didn't include units in your note - that's 1.8 deg F.

Temp_Anomaly_NASA_2018.JPG

I prefer warm weather over cold also. You acknowledged a "severe impact" of 1.5 to 2 deg C, so I'll leave it at that.
 
Media_Truth said:
Did he expose an uncomfortable truth, when he spoke up for the tobacco industry years ago?

Now with added irony Lindzen argues that we should be equally sceptical about both climate change and the link between smoking and cancer, but his argument can just as easily be turned around. If you accept Lindzen’s ‘impeccably logical’ view that the two arguments are comparable, you reach the conclusion that the link between human activity and climate change is now so well-established that it makes about as much sense to doubt it as to doubt the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, that is, no sense at all.

A notable fact about the professional climate sceptics is that many of them (Singer, Seitz, Milloy and so on), are also paid advocates for the tobacco industry, there’s no* evidence to suggest that Lindzen is acting from mercenary motives. It appears that he’s just an irresponsible contrarian as a matter of temperament.

Credibility up in smoke ? Crooked Timber
Click to expand...

A 12-year-old hit piece impresses no one.
 
Media_Truth said:
OK, tell that to the people who are living in cities that will be flooded. When hurricanes, that are much stronger and fiercer than anything we've ever seen, ravage our heavily populated areas. As wildfires get more and more uncontrollable in the Mountain West. As cropland becomes decimated by insects and blight, and the people who rely on those crops start going without food. Tell your children and grandchildren.
Click to expand...

As I said: Irrational shrieking.

Another poster to this board recently, framed the dire consequence predicted to occur over roughly the next millennium by the Alarmists as a dire consequence to occur over the next century.

Interestingly, the historical sea rise they claim has already occurred due to the runaway warming really has not.

The Castillo de San Marcos built on the coast of Florida by the Spaniards in the 1600's is STILL on the coast of Florida. The moat was designed to be filled by opening gates and allowing sea water to flood in.

The moat is still there and is still flood-able using sea water as originally designed about 350 years ago .

According to the described "historical" sea level rise, it should be under water or, at the least, the moat should be perpetually filled. Actually, not so much...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_San_Marcos
<snip>
The fort has four bastions named San Pedro, San Agustín, San Carlos and San Pablo with a ravelin protecting the sally port. On the two landward sides a large glacis was constructed which would force any attackers to advance upward toward the fort's cannon and allow the cannon shot to proceed downslope for greater efficiency in hitting multiple targets. Immediately surrounding the fort was a moat which was usually kept dry, but that could be flooded with seawater to a depth of about a foot in case of attack by land.[11]
<snip>
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
U.S. National Monument
Aerial view of Castillo De San Marcos
Location11 South Castillo Drive
St. Augustine, Florida
Coordinates
17px-WMA_button2b.png
29°53′52″N81°18′41″W
Area320 acres (1.29 km²)
Built1672–1695
WebsiteCastillo de San Marcos National Monument
NRHP reference #66000062
Significant dates
Added to NRHPOctober 15, 1966[SUP][1][/SUP]
Designated NMONOctober 15, 1924
<snip>
 
Steve Case said:
This lecture by Dr. Lindzen is almost 5,000 words long and a very good read:

GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE TWO CULTURES - Richard Lindzen
Click to expand...

Excellent article. Allow me to post a portion of the conclusion:

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct 'knowledge' and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Yes, well, I grew up in outback Australia and I too have moved south - away from the tropics. It's unfortunate for the rest of the world that most of the highest-polluting countries lie at higher latitudes, with many citizens sharing the bias of supposing that warmer climate must be a good thing.
Click to expand...

The last year I lived in what I think of as my home town, the temperature was below zero F continuously for about 3 months.

At that temperature, the life style is not much different than living on the lunar surface. Being outside for an extended period is worth your life and requires careful preparation and planning.

Mark Twain described the place as 11 months of Winter and one month of bad sledding.

Moving even 100 miles south added about 2 months to the growing season. The temperature was only a part of the issue for growing stuff, though, as the glaciers had previously scraped away all of the top soil and left nothing but clay and rock at the surface.

As a race, we seem quite adaptable, but very, very fragile lacking the proper improvised adaptations.
 
Media_Truth said:
Actually, the current temperature anomaly is at nearly 1 deg C. You didn't include units in your note - that's 1.8 deg F.

View attachment 67242134

I prefer warm weather over cold also. You acknowledged a "severe impact" of 1.5 to 2 deg C, so I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Our current temperatures are measured by instruments and the temperatures of the past are reconstructed based on proxies. Your chart picks up the temperature consideration starting at the coolest point of the temperature record in 10,000 years. This cold point was an anomaly from the normal range and the subsequent warming has been a blessing for all of mankind.

Using proxies is the only way to compare current to past. Proxy temperatures relate changes in terms far slower than instruments can record.

We are currently cooler than most of the Holocene period. IF we are to apply the instrument data to the proxy based graphs, then the instrument record becomes just on more data track to affect the average.

Over the course of the Holocene, proxies shown on the chart below indicate that the globe has been much, much warmer than now over just the last 10,000 years.

Other charts indicate that the globe was much, much warmer for much longer periods than the Holocene over the last half million years. In all cases, the globe cooled again when that interglacial ended.

Regarding the instrument record, from this layman's point of view, it is very suspect and relies heavily on averaging and projections prior to the satellite era. The number of stations per square mile north of the arctic circle are very few compared to the number of stations in New York City as an example.

Africa and Antarctica are also similarly under reported. Projections are employed to cover the lack of actual data. Outside of the important British colonies and the US, the climate data seems spotty or comparatively absent before 1930.

Basing real-world conclusion on this imagination-world set of data seems naively optimistic in the extreme.

​

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is not shown on the graph.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Our current temperatures are measured by instruments and the temperatures of the past are reconstructed based on proxies. Your chart picks up the temperature consideration starting at the coolest point of the temperature record in 10,000 years. This cold point was an anomaly from the normal range and the subsequent warming has been a blessing for all of mankind.

Using proxies is the only way to compare current to past. Proxy temperatures relate changes in terms far slower than instruments can record.

We are currently cooler than most of the Holocene period. IF we are to apply the instrument data to the proxy based graphs, then the instrument record becomes just on more data track to affect the average.

Over the course of the Holocene, proxies shown on the chart below indicate that the globe has been much, much warmer than now over just the last 10,000 years.

Other charts indicate that the globe was much, much warmer for much longer periods than the Holocene over the last half million years. In all cases, the globe cooled again when that interglacial ended.

Regarding the instrument record, from this layman's point of view, it is very suspect and relies heavily on averaging and projections prior to the satellite era. The number of stations per square mile north of the arctic circle are very few compared to the number of stations in New York City as an example.

Africa and Antarctica are also similarly under reported. Projections are employed to cover the lack of actual data. Outside of the important British colonies and the US, the climate data seems spotty or comparatively absent before 1930.

Basing real-world conclusion on this imagination-world set of data seems naively optimistic in the extreme.

​

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is not shown on the graph.
Click to expand...

Dang, how did all those Climatologists get it wrong. They could have just talked to you. Here they used this method in AR6. Silly gooses!!!

This report defines ‘warming’, unless otherwise qualified, as an increase in multi-decade global mean
surface temperature (GMST) above pre–industrial levels. Specifically, warming at a given point in
time is defined as the global average of combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures for a
30–year period centred on that time, expressed relative to the reference period 1850-1900 (adopted for
consistency with Box SPM.1 Figure 1 of IPCC (2014e) ‘as an approximation of pre–industrial levels’,
excluding the impact of natural climate fluctuations within that 30–year period and assuming any
secular trend continues throughout that period, extrapolating into the future if necessary. There are
multiple ways of accounting for natural fluctuations and trends (e.g., Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011;
Haustein et al., 2017; Medhaug et al., 2017), but all give similar results. A major volcanic eruption
might temporarily reduce observed global temperatures, but would not reduce warming as defined
here (Bethke et al., 2017). Likewise, given that the level of warming is currently increasing at 0.3-
0.7°C per 30 years (Kirtman et al., 2013), the level of warming in 2017 is 0.15-0.35°C higher than
average warming over the 30–year period 1988-2017.
In summary, this report adopts a working definition of ‘1.5°C relative to pre–industrial levels’ that
corresponds to global average combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures either 1.5°C
warmer than the average of the 51-year period 1850-1900, 0.87°C warmer than the 20-year period
1986–2005, or 0.63°C warmer than the decade 2006–2015. These offsets are based on all available
published global datasets, combined and updated, which show that 1986-2005 was 0.63°C (±0.06°C
5–95% range based on observational uncertainties alone), and 2006-2015 was 0.87°C (±0.12°C likely
range also accounting for the possible impact of natural fluctuations), warmer than 1850–1900. Where
possible,
 
Media_Truth said:
Then you'll have no problem providing a reputable link.
Click to expand...

This is a very old issue. I'm sorry if you aren't aware of it, and I'm not going to even look. I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out to you before, and dismissed. I am certain you will just deny the facts like you normally deny inconvenient truths.
 
Media_Truth said:
Dang, how did all those Climatologists get it wrong. They could have just talked to you. Here they used this method in AR6. Silly gooses!!!

This report defines ‘warming’, unless otherwise qualified, as an increase in multi-decade global mean
surface temperature (GMST) above pre–industrial levels. Specifically, warming at a given point in
time is defined as the global average of combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures for a
30–year period centred on that time, expressed relative to the reference period 1850-1900 (adopted for
consistency with Box SPM.1 Figure 1 of IPCC (2014e) ‘as an approximation of pre–industrial levels’,
excluding the impact of natural climate fluctuations within that 30–year period and assuming any
secular trend continues throughout that period, extrapolating into the future if necessary. There are
multiple ways of accounting for natural fluctuations and trends (e.g., Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011;
Haustein et al., 2017; Medhaug et al., 2017), but all give similar results. A major volcanic eruption
might temporarily reduce observed global temperatures, but would not reduce warming as defined
here (Bethke et al., 2017). Likewise, given that the level of warming is currently increasing at 0.3-
0.7°C per 30 years (Kirtman et al., 2013), the level of warming in 2017 is 0.15-0.35°C higher than
average warming over the 30–year period 1988-2017.
In summary, this report adopts a working definition of ‘1.5°C relative to pre–industrial levels’ that
corresponds to global average combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures either 1.5°C
warmer than the average of the 51-year period 1850-1900, 0.87°C warmer than the 20-year period
1986–2005, or 0.63°C warmer than the decade 2006–2015. These offsets are based on all available
published global datasets, combined and updated, which show that 1986-2005 was 0.63°C (±0.06°C
5–95% range based on observational uncertainties alone), and 2006-2015 was 0.87°C (±0.12°C likely
range also accounting for the possible impact of natural fluctuations), warmer than 1850–1900. Where
possible,
Click to expand...

So the new report has decided to (Very verbosely) add a layer of abstraction between the data sets and the prediction.
An example is the HadCrut4 average of the 51-year period 1850-1900 is -.311 C, but is "0" in this report.
They also seem to go to great lengths to discuss why the 30 year average is necessary to eliminate
natural variability, but then cite a 20 year period, a 10 year period, and a single year temperature as to how much it is warmed.
(1986–2005, 20 year: decade 2006–2015, 10 year: the level of warming in 2017, single year).
To get to the predicted range of 1.5°C from .87 °C in the next 12 to 34 years, would require consistent warming
not observed anywhere in the record.
Add to this that 2018 will likely be .1 C cooler than 2017 which was .1 C cooler than 2016,
and the range becomes unlikely.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Too bad your blog is a lie. What is left out of such propaganda is that this was about second hand smoke. Not smoking.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You're thinking of the Heartland Institute. They were the one who was casting doubt on the dangers of second-hand smoke. Lindzen was casting doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer.
 
Buzz said:
Wrong. You're thinking of the Heartland Institute. They were the one who was casting doubt on the dangers of second-hand smoke. Lindzen was casting doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't believe you.
Click to expand...

Of course, you don't believe me. That's what happens when you are willfully ignorant of facts that you don't like.

Lindzen's record of casting doubt on whether or not smoking causes cancer has been mentioned on this forum many times over the years.

Here is a link to the Newsweek article quoted in the Crooked Timber article. The quote again:

Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.
Click to expand...
 
Buzz said:
Of course, you don't believe me. That's what happens when you are willfully ignorant of facts that you don't like.

Lindzen's record of casting doubt on whether or not smoking causes cancer has been mentioned on this forum many times over the years.

Here is a link to the Newsweek article quoted in the Crooked Timber article. The quote again:
Click to expand...

OK, how about a full context transcript, or vidio.

That could be nothing but a bloggers lie. Even then, he says it is weakly linked. You do know don't you he may have been talking about natural cigarettes... the ones without added chemicals in the processing...

Weakly linked...

Words have meaning. Why do I have to keep reminding you guys of that, and your quoting of unknown people, claiming to recount what someone else says correctl;y.

Please produce a proper source instead of what is just as likely to be someone elses lie.
 
Media_Truth said:
Dang, how did all those Climatologists get it wrong. They could have just talked to you. Here they used this method in AR6. Silly gooses!!!

This report defines ‘warming’, unless otherwise qualified, as an increase in multi-decade global mean
surface temperature (GMST) above pre–industrial levels. Specifically, warming at a given point in
time is defined as the global average of combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures for a
30–year period centred on that time, expressed relative to the reference period 1850-1900 (adopted for
consistency with Box SPM.1 Figure 1 of IPCC (2014e) ‘as an approximation of pre–industrial levels’,
excluding the impact of natural climate fluctuations within that 30–year period and assuming any
secular trend continues throughout that period, extrapolating into the future if necessary. There are
multiple ways of accounting for natural fluctuations and trends (e.g., Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011;
Haustein et al., 2017; Medhaug et al., 2017), but all give similar results. A major volcanic eruption
might temporarily reduce observed global temperatures, but would not reduce warming as defined
here (Bethke et al., 2017). Likewise, given that the level of warming is currently increasing at 0.3-
0.7°C per 30 years (Kirtman et al., 2013), the level of warming in 2017 is 0.15-0.35°C higher than
average warming over the 30–year period 1988-2017.
In summary, this report adopts a working definition of ‘1.5°C relative to pre–industrial levels’ that
corresponds to global average combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures either 1.5°C
warmer than the average of the 51-year period 1850-1900, 0.87°C warmer than the 20-year period
1986–2005, or 0.63°C warmer than the decade 2006–2015. These offsets are based on all available
published global datasets, combined and updated, which show that 1986-2005 was 0.63°C (±0.06°C
5–95% range based on observational uncertainties alone), and 2006-2015 was 0.87°C (±0.12°C likely
range also accounting for the possible impact of natural fluctuations), warmer than 1850–1900. Where
possible,
Click to expand...

You apparently missed the not-so-well-hidden FACT contained in the posted chart that the record of Holocene Climate was researched and constructed by scientists.

You can ignore reality. Reality won't ignore you.

Did you know that about half of the the northern hemisphere was covered with ice and snow until about 20,000 years ago.

The glaciers that covered it have been melting since that time. according to the dogma of the Alarmists, the climate should be continuously warming due to increasing CO2 and the effects, like melting ice and retreating glaciers, should be consistently accelerating.

This is, of course, not supported by real world facts.

New Paper: Glacier Melt Rates Were Up To 3 Times Greater, Faster During Early 20th Century
<snip>
The retreat accelerated rapidly (15.3 m yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century. In the second half of the 20th century, the retreat decelerated considerably, reflected in the lowest values around 1985 (5.2 m yr−1) and a trend shift in 1994, with an advance observed in Gljúfurárjökull. … The retreat rate intensified in the period 2000–2005 compared with 1994–2000, but did not reach the rates recorded before 1946.”
<snip>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom