Climate v. Climate Alarm

[Dorts]

Climate v. Climate Alarm by Richard S. Lindzen.
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Available below is the text from a very 'in-depth' presentation he recently gave. It offers a clear, if rather technical view saying, 'Increasing CO2 and greenhouse warming are not at all indicative of alarm, and that there is ample evidence that the system is not particularly sensitive'

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2...11-lindzen.pdf

I like Richard, he is a calm and honest man, not given to extreme views. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

I have not read the paper in detail yet Dorts, but what strikes me first Is that the author seems to regard a 1*C rise in global temperature as unimportant. Many climate scientists would disagree. Much of the argument is about "tipping points." Clearly, if you accept a gradualist view, then 1* is neither here nor there. OTOH, if there are tipping points, then we may have passed one already.

Ric

[Dorts]

Give it a read Ric. It's an interesting piece of work.

A 'tipping-point' to what? We have had higher temps in the past, and we have had much higher Co2 levels also, without either causing anything 'catastrophic', just plenty more plant growth. (First thing the greenhouse-grower does is to raise day temps to a steady 25 - 30c and raise Co2 to around 1000-1400ppm. Plants love it.)

Even if Co2 levels were much higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make very little difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated.

For an explanation try: Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

I agree that the paper is well worth reading. Just for the record, I would point out that we have indeed seen much higher levels of atmospheric CO2, and higher average global temperatures in the past. Sea levels were ~30 m + above present levels at those times. Bangla Desh and the Pacific Island states may have a less sanguine attitude than yours about global warming. The Dutch might be a bit iffy as well!

Ric

[Dorts]

I am in full agreement that any rises in sea levels above the present levels could be very problematic for many areas of the globe, and we should be making plans to do whatever is necessary to adapt should temps suddenly start to rise at worrying rate.
But I don't believe, as Richard Lindzen's paper shows, along with many other recent reports, that we are likely to have been the cause of anything other than a very small proportion of the warming during the 20th.C up to 1998-2000, (temps have remained pretty steady since then even though Co2 levels have continued to rise).

It is already being muted that the IPCC's new report due out in November is to be considerably toned-down from the somewhat alarming predictions af the past.

Footnote: It has just been reported that sea levels in the seas around Australia and New Zealand have actually dropped by 6mm during 2010!
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

On the other hand, Dorts, the steps needed to reduce anthropogenic production of CO2 are all steps we should be taking to reduce pollution and cut consumption of irreplaceable natural resources anyway. So we are doing the right thing albeit for the wrong reasons!

Ric

[Dorts]

Almost in agreement with you there Ric. Except Co2 is not a pollutant! Though much of what is emitted with it, often is.
Cheers.
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

It was the other mucky stuff I meant. SO2, SO3, NO, NO2, H2S, lethal heavy metals from coal, radioactives from coal, oil spills, chlorocarbons, fluorocarbons, methane - the list goes on.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

It was the other mucky stuff I meant. SO2, SO3, NO, NO2, H2S, lethal heavy metals from coal, radioactives from coal, oil spills, chlorocarbons, fluorocarbons, methane - the list goes on.

I believe the technology exists to remove most of the elements you have listed, but as usual it's all down to cost, rather than political or industrial will. And that's just in Britain, can you imagine what is now being thrown into the atmosphere in India, China etc. and we haven't a clue what effect that may have. All reasearch having been focused on the fairly innocuous Co2.
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Especially in China. Anyway "cost" means out of pocket now. Downstream costs like ffing up the entire biosphere don't count.