105 replies to this topic

[Rich C]

Concrete alone is said to be the #3 cause of CO2!

A 5 MW turbine may need an 80-foot diameter reinforced concrete foundation to provide support. Such a foundation will require a volume of concrete in the range of 850 to 900 cubic yards (mass concrete) for EACH windmill.

 

Imagine the energy used and pollution caused in the mining, manufacture, transportation, constant maintenance of windmills!

But let's ignore that pollution just as we do with the mining of rare earth metals often by forced child labor, for the huge batteries which eventually need replacement.

Windmills don't even work when the wind dies.

Solar panels don't work at night or on cloudy days.

Child laborers exhale CO2 all the time...

.

 

Not in my backyard does not mean it's not polluting someplace else.

 

.

Chinese pollution killing for your windmills

You are wrong, yet again.  The carbon hit on wind turbines mostly occurs up front and when amortized over the useful like of the turbine, its carbon footprint is far below nat gas and coal.

 

Article from Forbes, magazine of one time republican presidential candidate.

 

2021 - .How green is wind power? It’s not a simple question. Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets. 

 

 

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide. 

 

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted.

 

It’s a big distinction. But how significant? Analyst Deepa Venkateswaran at Bernstein Research looked into it. 

 

Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%.

 

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.

 

https://www.forbes.c...sh=468ac17073cd

 

[Rich C]

 

I'm planning to go to live abroad because I've got enough of all the leftist idiots that I've got around here where I live. They are protesting because they say we need to cut our CO2 emissions.........and they don't know, these retards, that the contribution of italy to the global worldwide emission of CO2 is 0.8% which means less than 1% (Europe on the whole 8%). Why these idiots don't go to protest in China that is one of the largest producer of CO2 in the world, is something that should be investigated under the term ''mental illness of simpletons that have been raised applying strict communist doctrine''...........VIVA MARX, VIVA LENIN and the wh@@@s of their mothers.   

 

Most likely you will not be able to escape.  CO2 alarmists are all over.  They have no empirical evidence to support their "catastrophic" hypothesis.  Instead they try to hide behind the false "consensus" narrative that "97%" of scientists say we are doomed unless we decarbonize.  They ignore the overwhelming evidence that the "97%" study by Cook, et al (and similar studies) is fatally flawed or that consensus is not part of science (politics yes). 

 

The fact is that empirical evidence from many instrumental and geological studies show that atmospheric CO2 lags air temperature which in turn lags ocean surface temperature.  This is upside down to the alarmist hypothesis that CO2 is the major factor for increased air temperature unless we throw simple logic out the window and have the effect producing cause.  Alarmist have to debunk those studies or accept their illogical position.

 

Good luck on your "escape".

 

And of course you can show peer reviewed studies that support your position?

[colion]

 

 

I'm planning to go to live abroad because I've got enough of all the leftist idiots that I've got around here where I live. They are protesting because they say we need to cut our CO2 emissions.........and they don't know, these retards, that the contribution of italy to the global worldwide emission of CO2 is 0.8% which means less than 1% (Europe on the whole 8%). Why these idiots don't go to protest in China that is one of the largest producer of CO2 in the world, is something that should be investigated under the term ''mental illness of simpletons that have been raised applying strict communist doctrine''...........VIVA MARX, VIVA LENIN and the wh@@@s of their mothers.   

 

Most likely you will not be able to escape.  CO2 alarmists are all over.  They have no empirical evidence to support their "catastrophic" hypothesis.  Instead they try to hide behind the false "consensus" narrative that "97%" of scientists say we are doomed unless we decarbonize.  They ignore the overwhelming evidence that the "97%" study by Cook, et al (and similar studies) is fatally flawed or that consensus is not part of science (politics yes). 

 

The fact is that empirical evidence from many instrumental and geological studies show that atmospheric CO2 lags air temperature which in turn lags ocean surface temperature.  This is upside down to the alarmist hypothesis that CO2 is the major factor for increased air temperature unless we throw simple logic out the window and have the effect producing cause.  Alarmist have to debunk those studies or accept their illogical position.

 

Good luck on your "escape".

 

And of course you can show peer reviewed studies that support your position?

 

 

 

Of course there are.  Many in fact including those listed below, including videos if you don't want to wade through the papers.  The simplistic single control knob AGW hypothesis has no theoretical or empirical support.  

 

https://www.scienced...921818112001658

https://www.nature.c...ticles/347122a0

https://www.science....ce.291.5501.112

https://doi.org/10.3390/sci2040083

https://doi.org/10.1...G.2.1.4996.7840

https://doi.org/10.4...rXiv.2006.03098

video: 

video: 

Edited by colion, 31 July 2023 - 08:07 AM.

[andr99]

Come on, NASA has sent the first human to the Moon, so if someone has to be trusted, is it them or.........who ?  If they say CO2 is responsible, they have the background and the knowledge to do that. And they are more credible than anyone else. My two cents..... 

[Rich C]

 

 

 

I'm planning to go to live abroad because I've got enough of all the leftist idiots that I've got around here where I live. They are protesting because they say we need to cut our CO2 emissions.........and they don't know, these retards, that the contribution of italy to the global worldwide emission of CO2 is 0.8% which means less than 1% (Europe on the whole 8%). Why these idiots don't go to protest in China that is one of the largest producer of CO2 in the world, is something that should be investigated under the term ''mental illness of simpletons that have been raised applying strict communist doctrine''...........VIVA MARX, VIVA LENIN and the wh@@@s of their mothers.   

 

Most likely you will not be able to escape.  CO2 alarmists are all over.  They have no empirical evidence to support their "catastrophic" hypothesis.  Instead they try to hide behind the false "consensus" narrative that "97%" of scientists say we are doomed unless we decarbonize.  They ignore the overwhelming evidence that the "97%" study by Cook, et al (and similar studies) is fatally flawed or that consensus is not part of science (politics yes). 

 

The fact is that empirical evidence from many instrumental and geological studies show that atmospheric CO2 lags air temperature which in turn lags ocean surface temperature.  This is upside down to the alarmist hypothesis that CO2 is the major factor for increased air temperature unless we throw simple logic out the window and have the effect producing cause.  Alarmist have to debunk those studies or accept their illogical position.

 

Good luck on your "escape".

 

And of course you can show peer reviewed studies that support your position?

 

 

 

Of course there are.  Many in fact including those listed below, including videos if you don't want to wade through the papers.  The simplistic single control knob AGW hypothesis has no theoretical or empirical support.  

 

video: 

 

 

First, let's take Dr. Lindzen.  That presentation is not a study, it is nothing but a rambling talk.  He spent 1/3 of the talk making fun or people in authority on climate change, without once stating their position and what was wrong with it.  Their is no presentation of a dataset with historical data on observations, just unsupported statements.

 

How can anyone believe that guy.

 

What is the essence of what he is saying, and how does he support it???

 

First, what is GWPF?  The global warming policy forum is who he was invited to speak to. 

 

From Wikipedia, on GWPF:

 

"In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty."

 

Clearly GWPF has an agenda.

 

When Lindzen does organize his thoughts and writes a paper, it is poor, at best.  Below is from Wikipedia, Richard Lindzen.

 

"Contrary to the IPCC's assessment in 2001, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.^[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO₂ levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO₂. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO₂ to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.^[51]These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,^[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.^[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.^[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.^[53][55]Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."

 

Dr. Lindzen has been discredited. 

[brucekeller]

Saw an article the other day about Greenland not having ice 500k years ago.  Weird that apparently CO2 back then was around 265-285ppm.  I'm sure they'll find new evidence saying it was actually 450ppm or something once enough question that. 

[colion]

 

 

 

 

I'm planning to go to live abroad because I've got enough of all the leftist idiots that I've got around here where I live. They are protesting because they say we need to cut our CO2 emissions.........and they don't know, these retards, that the contribution of italy to the global worldwide emission of CO2 is 0.8% which means less than 1% (Europe on the whole 8%). Why these idiots don't go to protest in China that is one of the largest producer of CO2 in the world, is something that should be investigated under the term ''mental illness of simpletons that have been raised applying strict communist doctrine''...........VIVA MARX, VIVA LENIN and the wh@@@s of their mothers.   

 

Most likely you will not be able to escape.  CO2 alarmists are all over.  They have no empirical evidence to support their "catastrophic" hypothesis.  Instead they try to hide behind the false "consensus" narrative that "97%" of scientists say we are doomed unless we decarbonize.  They ignore the overwhelming evidence that the "97%" study by Cook, et al (and similar studies) is fatally flawed or that consensus is not part of science (politics yes). 

 

The fact is that empirical evidence from many instrumental and geological studies show that atmospheric CO2 lags air temperature which in turn lags ocean surface temperature.  This is upside down to the alarmist hypothesis that CO2 is the major factor for increased air temperature unless we throw simple logic out the window and have the effect producing cause.  Alarmist have to debunk those studies or accept their illogical position.

 

Good luck on your "escape".

 

And of course you can show peer reviewed studies that support your position?

 

 

 

Of course there are.  Many in fact including those listed below, including videos if you don't want to wade through the papers.  The simplistic single control knob AGW hypothesis has no theoretical or empirical support.  

 

video: 

 

 

First, let's take Dr. Lindzen.  That presentation is not a study, it is nothing but a rambling talk.  He spent 1/3 of the talk making fun or people in authority on climate change, without once stating their position and what was wrong with it.  Their is no presentation of a dataset with historical data on observations, just unsupported statements.

 

How can anyone believe that guy.

 

What is the essence of what he is saying, and how does he support it???

 

First, what is GWPF?  The global warming policy forum is who he was invited to speak to. 

 

From Wikipedia, on GWPF:

 

"In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty."

 

Clearly GWPF has an agenda.

 

When Lindzen does organize his thoughts and writes a paper, it is poor, at best.  Below is from Wikipedia, Richard Lindzen.

 

"Contrary to the IPCC's assessment in 2001, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.^[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO₂ levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO₂. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO₂ to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.^[51]These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,^[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.^[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.^[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.^[53][55]Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."

 

Dr. Lindzen has been discredited. 

 

 

As I told you that the videos were given to you so that you could avoid going through the papers/studies.  Links to the papers/studies were given to you and absent any rebuttal I presume that you agree with them.

 

Lindzen "discredited" is a laughable as hominem as is using Wikipedia; neither Wikipedia nor you refute the paper on the merits.  He is one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world - as was Salby.  Lindzen has published hundreds of papers and received several awards.  In the paper cited Lindzen said that the reviewer was correct so the review process was useful and he corrected the paper.  The fact that PNAS rejected the revised paper is not a negative statement about the paper.  The review of the revised paper has received much criticism and been widely reported.  Specifically, PNAS rejected Linzen's two reviewers as unsuitable and then recommended 5 which Lindzen rejected.  The paper was then reviewed by 4 reviewers of which only 2 were deemed by Lindzen to be barely suitable.  All in all the review used by PNAS was not standard and was justified by the editor because the paper was skeptical of the consensus view (however that is determined) which is nonsense.  In short, the editors subjected the paper to special treatment rather than in accordance with its published review process.  This is the type of BS that goes on in scientific journals today.  Papers and views that are quite valid are often rejected especially today in woke leaning journals.  In any case, it's no skin off Lindzen's nose as he continued to publish numerous papers.

 

Yes, as he said, the models are quite inadequate and that's for current ones not 2001 which were even worse.  They run hot and the latest version is even hotter.  There is only one model that comes close to reality and that's the Russian one which minimizes the effect of CO2.  IPCC is now modifying future iterations to more closely mimic the Russian model.  If you were really interested in models, rather than the AGW religion, you would be up to date on the many papers on the subject.

 

The key thing to all of this tit-for-tat is that you cannot refute the empirical evidence presented in the papers or the bottom line statements in the videos.  Importantly, you have no empirical evidence supporting AGW because there is none.  Together that means that you cannot defend the AGW hypothesis which requires that CO2 be the major forcing for climate change.  If you can show that this is not case, please post that evidence otherwise it has been an interesting discussion.

[Rich C]

Dr. Lindzen is certainly not sure of his iris theory and yet sometimes he talks like he is sure:

 

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

 

But for more than a decade, Dr. Lindzen has said that when surface temperature increases, the columns of moist air rising in the tropics will rain out more of their moisture, leaving less available to be thrown off as ice, which forms the thin, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, these cirrus clouds act to reduce the cooling of the earth, and a decrease of them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases.

 

Dr. Lindzen calls his mechanism the iris effect, after the iris of the eye, which opens at night to let in more light. In this case, the earth’s “iris” of high clouds would be opening to let more heat escape.

 

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.

 

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

 

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

 

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

Dr. Lindzen blames groupthink among climate scientists for his publication difficulties, saying the majority is determined to suppress any dissenting views. They, in turn, contend that he routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers.

 

“If I’m right, we’ll have saved money” by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. “If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.”

 

From the same article, link below:

 

Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.

 

“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”

 

 

https://www.nytimes....dissenters.html

 

Many years on from his publication of his paper, he has not proven his iris theory.  "If I'm wrong, we'll know in 50 years and can do something".

 

Pffftttt.  That's laughable.  And it's pathetic.  Tremendous damage is being done now, as predicted, more extreme events, Lindzen can't prove his point, which is rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists, and the best he can come up with is wait 50 years in case I am right? 

 

And yet, what we observe corresponds to what IPCC scientists have been predicting, warming of the globe continues up to today.

 

 

GENEVA, 12 January 2023 - The past eight years were the warmest on record globally, fueled by ever-rising greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat, according to six leading international temperature datasets consolidated by the World Meteorological Organization.

 

The average global temperature in 2022 was about 1.15 [1.02 to 1.27] °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels. 2022 is the 8^th consecutive year (2015-2022) that annual global temperatures have reached at least 1°C above pre-industrial levels, according to all datasets compiled by WMO. 2015 to 2022 are the eight warmest years on record. The likelihood of – temporarily – breaching the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Agreement is increasing with time.

 

The 10-year average temperature for the period 2013-2022 is 1.14 [1.02 to 1.27] °C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline. This compares with 1.09°C from 2011 to 2020, as estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment report, and indicates that long-term warming continues.

 

Dramatic weather disasters

“In 2022, we faced several dramatic weather disasters which claimed far too many lives and livelihoods and undermined health, food, energy and water security and infrastructure. Large areas of Pakistan were flooded, with major economic losses and human casualties. Record breaking heatwaves have been observed in China, Europe, North and South America. The long-lasting drought in the Horn of Africa threatens a humanitarian catastrophe,” said WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas.

https://public.wmo.i...-warmest-record

 

[colion]

 

Dr. Lindzen is certainly not sure of his iris theory and yet sometimes he talks like he is sure:

 

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

 

But for more than a decade, Dr. Lindzen has said that when surface temperature increases, the columns of moist air rising in the tropics will rain out more of their moisture, leaving less available to be thrown off as ice, which forms the thin, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, these cirrus clouds act to reduce the cooling of the earth, and a decrease of them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases.

 

Dr. Lindzen calls his mechanism the iris effect, after the iris of the eye, which opens at night to let in more light. In this case, the earth’s “iris” of high clouds would be opening to let more heat escape.

 

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.

 

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

 

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

 

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

Dr. Lindzen blames groupthink among climate scientists for his publication difficulties, saying the majority is determined to suppress any dissenting views. They, in turn, contend that he routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers.

“If I’m right, we’ll have saved money” by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. “If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.”

 

From the same article, link below:

 

Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.

 

“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”

 

 

https://www.nytimes....dissenters.html

 

Many years on from his publication of his paper, he has not proven his iris theory.  "If I'm wrong, we'll know in 50 years and can do something".

 

Pffftttt.  That's laughable.  And it's pathetic.  Tremendous damage is being done now, as predicted, more extreme events, Lindzen can't prove his point, which is rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists, and the best he can come up with is wait 50 years in case I am right? 

 

And yet, what we observe corresponds to what IPCC scientists have been predicting, warming of the globe continues up to today.

 

 

GENEVA, 12 January 2023 - The past eight years were the warmest on record globally, fueled by ever-rising greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat, according to six leading international temperature datasets consolidated by the World Meteorological Organization.

 

The average global temperature in 2022 was about 1.15 [1.02 to 1.27] °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels. 2022 is the 8^th consecutive year (2015-2022) that annual global temperatures have reached at least 1°C above pre-industrial levels, according to all datasets compiled by WMO. 2015 to 2022 are the eight warmest years on record. The likelihood of – temporarily – breaching the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Agreement is increasing with time.

 

The 10-year average temperature for the period 2013-2022 is 1.14 [1.02 to 1.27] °C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline. This compares with 1.09°C from 2011 to 2020, as estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment report, and indicates that long-term warming continues.

 

Dramatic weather disasters

“In 2022, we faced several dramatic weather disasters which claimed far too many lives and livelihoods and undermined health, food, energy and water security and infrastructure. Large areas of Pakistan were flooded, with major economic losses and human casualties. Record breaking heatwaves have been observed in China, Europe, North and South America. The long-lasting drought in the Horn of Africa threatens a humanitarian catastrophe,” said WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas.

https://public.wmo.i...-warmest-record

 

 

Edited by colion, 01 August 2023 - 10:46 PM.

[colion]

 

 

Dr. Lindzen is certainly not sure of his iris theory and yet sometimes he talks like he is sure:

 

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

 

But for more than a decade, Dr. Lindzen has said that when surface temperature increases, the columns of moist air rising in the tropics will rain out more of their moisture, leaving less available to be thrown off as ice, which forms the thin, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, these cirrus clouds act to reduce the cooling of the earth, and a decrease of them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases.

 

Dr. Lindzen calls his mechanism the iris effect, after the iris of the eye, which opens at night to let in more light. In this case, the earth’s “iris” of high clouds would be opening to let more heat escape.

 

When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.

 

Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.

 

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

 

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

Dr. Lindzen blames groupthink among climate scientists for his publication difficulties, saying the majority is determined to suppress any dissenting views. They, in turn, contend that he routinely misrepresents the work of other researchers.

“If I’m right, we’ll have saved money” by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. “If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.”

 

From the same article, link below:

 

Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.

 

“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”

 

 

https://www.nytimes....dissenters.html

 

Many years on from his publication of his paper, he has not proven his iris theory.  "If I'm wrong, we'll know in 50 years and can do something".

 

Pffftttt.  That's laughable.  And it's pathetic.  Tremendous damage is being done now, as predicted, more extreme events, Lindzen can't prove his point, which is rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists, and the best he can come up with is wait 50 years in case I am right? 

 

And yet, what we observe corresponds to what IPCC scientists have been predicting, warming of the globe continues up to today.

 

 

GENEVA, 12 January 2023 - The past eight years were the warmest on record globally, fueled by ever-rising greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat, according to six leading international temperature datasets consolidated by the World Meteorological Organization.

 

The average global temperature in 2022 was about 1.15 [1.02 to 1.27] °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels. 2022 is the 8^th consecutive year (2015-2022) that annual global temperatures have reached at least 1°C above pre-industrial levels, according to all datasets compiled by WMO. 2015 to 2022 are the eight warmest years on record. The likelihood of – temporarily – breaching the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Agreement is increasing with time.

 

The 10-year average temperature for the period 2013-2022 is 1.14 [1.02 to 1.27] °C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial baseline. This compares with 1.09°C from 2011 to 2020, as estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment report, and indicates that long-term warming continues.

 

Dramatic weather disasters

“In 2022, we faced several dramatic weather disasters which claimed far too many lives and livelihoods and undermined health, food, energy and water security and infrastructure. Large areas of Pakistan were flooded, with major economic losses and human casualties. Record breaking heatwaves have been observed in China, Europe, North and South America. The long-lasting drought in the Horn of Africa threatens a humanitarian catastrophe,” said WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas.

https://public.wmo.i...-warmest-record

 

 

 

Dodge.  You are unable to debunk the empirical evidence presented that CO2 lags temperature contrary to the AGW hypothesis; AGW hypothesis is dead.  Your bloviated cut and paste in re Lindzen's Iris theory is a straw man and your attempt to pull him down with Google is of no interest that smacks of ideological zealotry.  As with the other references, you cannot debunk what he says in the video.

 

Edited by colion, 01 August 2023 - 10:58 PM.