Climate seminar, Prof Linzen

[carbonhed]

This guy is the dullest public speaker in the history of the universe but unlike Al Gore... he actually knows what he's talking about. There's a .pdf of the talk here :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mmons-2012.pdf

[mashman]

I honestly tried, but you're right... almost 3/4 of the way through the first one I was starting to nod off.

[rainman]

This guy is the dullest public speaker in the history of the universe but unlike Al Gore... he actually knows what he's talking about. There's a .pdf of the talk here :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mmons-2012.pdf

Can't say I'll watch the video (particularly after a sales job like that), and I must be honest and say WUWT has sharply disappointed in the past, but I'll read the notes.

What makes you say he knows what he's talking about? Do you mean you like his conclusions?

And, I'll see your RIchard S Lindzen, and raise you one Professor Lord Nick Stern, in a podcast series well worth the time. Be interested to hear your, or any other disagreement with his basic argument (skip the complicated econ bits in #2, I reckon, unless you now your Pigou from your Schumpeter).

I think he's a bit optimistic, actually... but he puts up a solid bit of logic:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2012/02/20120221t1830vOT.aspx

And, lest I be accused of not providing balance, here's a prominent sceptic from the same source:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/e...6t1830vNT.aspx

Diametrically opposed, almost. Lomborg certainly hates Gore. Yet what do they have in common?

[carbonhed]

I honestly tried, but you're right... almost 3/4 of the way through the first one I was starting to nod off.

I quite understand... but without the flash presentation there's not a trace of spin in him and the science is fascinating. Read the .pdf.

[Jantar]

...
And, I'll see your RIchard S Lindzen, and raise you one Professor Lord Nick Stern, ....

Stern? he's an economist not a climatologist.

After attending Latymer Upper School, he earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics at Peterhouse, Cambridge, and his Doctor of Philosophy in economics at Nuffield College, Oxford

[rainman]

OK, read that. Well, it's a bit weird, isn't it? Lurches from one cherry-picked chart to the next, through a field of ad homs and semantic arguments. Where's the science, except that bit near the end before his snip about climategate? Certainly not a typical paper format, presenting a clear argument.

Is he really arguing on p29 against the very straightforward science known in the late 1800's by Arrhenius and others? A bit weird, considering he's (for a change) a real climate scientist, even if one in a 3% minority.Still, that's how science works I guess. Do you think he's disputing the data, or the model/mechanism? I'm not sure, after reading those notes.

I note he very carefully avoids saying the increase in CO2 and equivalents is not due to human activity.

[rainman]

Stern? he's an economist not a climatologist.

Yes, it's an economics lecture.

[Jantar]

... A bit weird, considering he's (for a change) a real climate scientist, even if one in a 3% minority.Still, that's how science works I guess. ....

No, he was one of the 97% who agreed with the questions asked. As would I have been if I had been included in the survey. Have another read of the survey questions and then see if you can find anyone would be in the 3%.

[Edbear]

David Bellamy's piece on "Our Frozen Planet" was very interestring this week. There is no doubt about climate change or global warming seeing the way the ice sheets are melting and the glaciers are retreating and the Antarctic is going 3 x faster than the Arctic.

This does not appear to be the result of Man's pollution and destruction of the environment, but is running parallel to it thus speeding up the process.

There is no doubt now, that CO2 emmissions are having a marked effect, but that is also running parallel to the melting of the Permafrost in Siberia for example, which is releasing untold tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and is "snowballing", in other words the more that melts, the faster it melts.

These processes are unstoppable and with or without Man's influence they are going to occur.

Man is having a two-fold effect. His pollution is speeding up the Global warming process quite dramatically, but also, his pollution and destruction of the environment, particularly in the oceans and the rainforests is leading to the extinction of the human race and most air-breathing life according to the scientists.

I see it as two seperate but parallel processes with Man's efforts speeding up the natural process. According to David Bellamy, we should be prepared to see millions of people displaced by the end of the century as low-lying areas of land, including, of course, the islands of the Pacific, disappear beneath the rising oceans.

[carbonhed]

Is he really arguing on p29 against the very straightforward science known in the late 1800's by Arrhenius and others?

.

No.

HTH.

And if you'd read and understood even up to page four you wouldn't have needed to ask such a stupid motherfucking question.

[mashman]

Interesting read but not to unexpected I guess. Short version being don't believe the hype. We have no idea what the consequences are going to be, even though this has likely happened before naturally.

The way I look at things is that we are a forest fire. Back in the days trees/greenery ran coast to coast on just about every continent (Pangea or not) and something will have sparked a fire. Without firemen or natural fire breaks there may well have been coast to coast fires. A mass dumping of co2 into the atmoshpere. Whereas a forest probably grows back in 50 - 100 years, we're paving over our forest fire areas (and using the rest for agriculture) which mean that trees aren't growing back (them tall things that store co2). That extra carbon has to go somewhere and that somewhere looks to be the ocean and I'm assuming that that is part of the reason for ocean "acidification". We are also adding in the burning of carbons that have been stored Km's below the surface for millions of years that probably wouldn't have been burned naturally because of their depth and high boil off point. We are definately having an effect and it's a "shame" that with so many variables we will probably never fully understand what we have done. The document sort of back the never really knowing side of things up, but that's about all imho. We do love our models. I don't have much faith in these models, a relatively new found thing. Primarily because a geologist dropped into a long dead Volcano and with stunned gaze and voice commented on how simple their models were. That's 1 Volcano out of, erm, lots. Ignoring the outliers may well be ignoring the causes, but we'll never know because they're outliers . Do we know how important localised ecosystems were in regards to the bigger picture before we bulldozed them. No! We are having an effect, but who knows to what degree that is and who knows what the outcome is going to be. We are something new for the planet to deal with, all the guessing in the world will not predict the outcome of that.

The permafrost in Siberia is also holding down HUGE quantities of methane, which if the "science" be true, is worse than CO2 from a warming point of view. Dunno if methane will also be absorbed by the ocean and if it does what the ramifications would be.

[avgas]

I find the whole whole climate change argument invalid when you consider current consumption and growth rates.
Its kind of like the doctor telling you you need to quit smoking because you have lung cancer....................................ignoring the fact you going into a fit on his floor due to eating a lethal amount of rat poison.

So watch out people, the ocean is going to rise a meter and storms are going to happen all over the world.

Never mind the fact that we will run out of food and water, and probably be wiped out due to starvation 100 years beforehand.

[Usarka]

This topic is like religion.

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doub.../dp/1596916109

A large number of the climate change denial scientists have worked in the tabacco industry. Make of that what you will or won't (because you will anyway).

[Scuba_Steve]

This topic is like religion.

this topic IS religion for many

[oneofsix]

I find the whole whole climate change argument invalid when you consider current consumption and growth rates.
Its kind of like the doctor telling you you need to quit smoking because you have lung cancer....................................ignoring the fact you going into a fit on his floor due to eating a lethal amount of rat poison.

So watch out people, the ocean is going to rise a meter and storms are going to happen all over the world.

Never mind the fact that we will run out of food and water, and probably be wiped out due to starvation 100 years beforehand.

No need to worry about the starvation thing either as we are going to be swiped out be a solar flare before that, December 12th isn't it? If I see the new year I will think about thinking about it.
In the meantime the whole climate change argument is as good away as any to pass the time when you can't be riding, as is any religious argument.