Tweet
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Sit...0Lindzen/f.htm
Notes:
70s and 80s saw some non-scientific organizational activity around 'global warming:
1) Climate Action Network: coordinating 100s of NGOs
2) Tyndall Center for Climate Studies and Institute for Climate Impact Research – interlocking directorates
Arctic Ice: Science being obscured by focus on peak/nadir ice levels.
Example: Arctic summer temperatures are identical over a 50+ year period – it is the winter temperatures which are variable
Lindzen comment: Any and every statement is justified by an appeal to authority rather than by scientific argument
‘faint sun’ paradox: doubling of CO2 impact on radiative budget = 1.5% to 2% of total energy budget - but during the ‘faint sun’ there was 20% to 30% lower incoming sunlight hence as 20% to 30% smaller budget. Yet temperatures were similar to today.
Later talk about what CO2 levels are necessary to mimic results? 3 atmospheres of CO2 would be needed - or 10000 times as much CO2 as today. Other accepted differences: no O2 to speak of.
Data point: 200 w/m2 incoming sun with 50 w/m2 ocean
IPCC models overview: The models cannot duplicate the ENSO, AMI, PDO – but are said to represent natural variability. The models also cannot simulate the 70s to 90s warming. The reasoning thus is that the difference must be AGW
Also: why hasn’t sensitivity range from 1.5 to 5 degrees C reduced in 30 years?
Overview of 11 IPCC GCM model feedback values
IPCC has no index. Summary doesn’t involve all authors (200 vs 13): "You write 10000 pages – no one reads that. Summary is 20 pages – no one reads that. Press release is 2 sentences and is useless.
If AGW emissions are 50 years – then there should be more than ½ of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Why the discrepancy? Modellers compensate via a fudging factor.
Only forecast: We will not have an Anthropogenic Climate Disaster
Notes:
70s and 80s saw some non-scientific organizational activity around 'global warming:
1) Climate Action Network: coordinating 100s of NGOs
2) Tyndall Center for Climate Studies and Institute for Climate Impact Research – interlocking directorates
Arctic Ice: Science being obscured by focus on peak/nadir ice levels.
Example: Arctic summer temperatures are identical over a 50+ year period – it is the winter temperatures which are variable
Lindzen comment: Any and every statement is justified by an appeal to authority rather than by scientific argument
‘faint sun’ paradox: doubling of CO2 impact on radiative budget = 1.5% to 2% of total energy budget - but during the ‘faint sun’ there was 20% to 30% lower incoming sunlight hence as 20% to 30% smaller budget. Yet temperatures were similar to today.
Later talk about what CO2 levels are necessary to mimic results? 3 atmospheres of CO2 would be needed - or 10000 times as much CO2 as today. Other accepted differences: no O2 to speak of.
Data point: 200 w/m2 incoming sun with 50 w/m2 ocean
IPCC models overview: The models cannot duplicate the ENSO, AMI, PDO – but are said to represent natural variability. The models also cannot simulate the 70s to 90s warming. The reasoning thus is that the difference must be AGW
Also: why hasn’t sensitivity range from 1.5 to 5 degrees C reduced in 30 years?
Overview of 11 IPCC GCM model feedback values
IPCC has no index. Summary doesn’t involve all authors (200 vs 13): "You write 10000 pages – no one reads that. Summary is 20 pages – no one reads that. Press release is 2 sentences and is useless.
If AGW emissions are 50 years – then there should be more than ½ of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Why the discrepancy? Modellers compensate via a fudging factor.
Only forecast: We will not have an Anthropogenic Climate Disaster
Comment