Oh look; another nail in the coffin of Global warming.

[Danno 1,228]

Soon MM Global warming will be right up there with the Y2K scare.

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Ci...s-MIT-Scientist

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish

every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”

for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now

persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected

in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed

throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400

fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at

least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must

accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged

ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global

warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.

Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.

Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.

As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.

The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.

The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.

(snip)..........

See website for charts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh geeze....Danno, try to remember that guy's name. You've posted several articles that feature him trying to debunk Global Warming.

Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, Richard Lindzen....

....

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments

An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry^[13].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."^[14]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."^[15]

....

Linzden's Betting Challenge on Global Warming

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."^[16]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

Edited August 22, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Danno 1,228]

Stephen, really now must everyone agree with you?

Is it not possible brilliant scientist can come to different opinions on the matter?

I hardly think they guy is "off the reservation" nor a hack.

Career

Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, and their roles in climate change, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.[3] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. Educated at Harvard University (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60), he moved to MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964-1965), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966-1967), University of Chicago (1968–1972) and Harvard University (1972–1983). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[4] He is known for pioneering the study of ozone photochemistry,[5] and advised several student theses on the subject.[6]

Awards and honors

Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

---------------------- you know at one time "only a few" were willing to believe in MM global warming, before long, "only a few" will still believe in it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stephen, really now must everyone agree with you?

Is it not possible brilliant scientist can come to different opinions on the matter?

No - it's just that every time the GW deniers declare they've found the smoking gun, it turns out to the be the same regurgitated and debunked info. No one has been able to debunk the IPCC report on GW. Not Lindzen, nor anyone else. But feel free to believe what you want, Danno. It's a free country...and the earth is flat too if you want to believe it.

[Ban Hammer 13,987]

[Danno 1,228]

"FEAR" is the great motivator.

The left indulge in it as a knee-jerk reaction.

[dalegg 143]

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Ci...s-MIT-Scientist

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere.

Now, they didn't really believe that when they wrote it did they? Everything else they've dismissed and this one study is going to affect them?

Edited August 22, 2009 by dalegg

[Peikko 1,575]

"FEAR" is the great motivator.

The left indulge in it as a knee-jerk reaction.

Blather cliche blather #######.

Even if you don't believe in GW, and there is no reason why you should - the acidification of the oceans due to Carbon Dioxide is measurable and having a devestating effect. Perhaps it would be worth concentrating energies on solving that problem, instead of debunking something you dont even understand.

[NickD 203]

I hope Al is making his cartoonist work overtime to counter Dicky, should have more personality, instead of just a polar bear, should be, Peggy the Polar bear. So we all can feel sorry for her and buy a hybrid car.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Stephen, really now must everyone agree with you?

Is it not possible brilliant scientist can come to different opinions on the matter?

No - it's just that every time the GW deniers declare they've found the smoking gun, it turns out to the be the same regurgitated and debunked info. No one has been able to debunk the IPCC report on GW. Not Lindzen, nor anyone else. But feel free to believe what you want, Danno. It's a free country...and the earth is flat too if you want to believe it.

Gee Steve, I thought you beleived in science? Or would that be selective science?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Many scientists have said that it all junk science. The government is just looking at trying to control the citizens

[Peikko 1,575]

Does the acidifaction of the oceans not bother you at all? It is quite literally killing vast swathes of ocean life. It's absolutely measurable and directly attributable to the actions of man.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Does the acidifaction of the oceans not bother you at all? It is quite literally killing vast swathes of ocean life. It's absolutely measurable and directly attributable to the actions of man.

You been taking readings or just beleivin what your reading?