“Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute with the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate (PAOC) playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis of this issue,” Lindzen wrote. “For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the ‘risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide’ really are,” he said, referencing something James Madison wrote in 1787.
I think you need to understand what his point is, he doesn’t deny Co2 levels are increasing nor does he claim a rise in Co2 won’t increase temperature.
So the question to you, which might help your focus is this.
If you double the level of Co2 in the atmosphere, how many degrees will the average global temperature rise and can you provide a level of certainty to your answer please?
I’m guessing watching a Nobel Laureate in Physics is too much to handle, too.
From 1880 to 2013 the temperature has increased from ~288 Kelvin to ~288.8 Kelvin, or 0.3%. He has a graph for the hairing impaired.
During that time the world population went fron ~1.5 billion to 7 billion.
I can, according to the IPCC reports, depending on which one you read the number can vary from 1 degree up to 6 degrees with most of the scientists being fairly confident (definitely not certain) that it is probably around 3.5 C degrees of warming for a doubling of Co2.
This is a key point for Lindzen, because factually what is known about a doubling of Co2
(in a black box environment) is it will result in 1 degree of warming, the rest is projected from additional feedbacks which are calculated by modeling and given the complexity of modeling the planet and number of variables involved over such a long time span doubts the ability to do so accurately.
You don’t know what my politics are on Global Warming.
But I do get a laugh about how you guys form your poltiics first and then grab some cranks to back up your world view.
Similar to fundamentalist religion.
I’ll note this to @KHHville while Richard Lindzen do bring up issues worth discussing, there are many who are just out to spread disinformation I suspect that graph is another example.
Even the idea of a global mean temperature is misleading as is the idea we can accurately know what it was throughout history. Frankly I’ve seen too many of these arguing about charts debates to know not to get drawn into them, but I assure you there will be plenty of other charts that dispute and show a very different record of historic temperatures.
