34 Replies to “MIT Atmospheric Physicist Explains What Everyone Should Know about Climate Alarmism

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Careful Barry, you might be prosecuted for climate denial.

  2. 2
    Zachriel says:

    Mung: Careful Barry, you might be prosecuted for climate denial.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Perhaps these climate scientists should take a course in Data Science Ethics

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    Climate Science Sucks.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    Eugen says:

    Left wing extremists. environmental fanatics and corrupt politicians absolutely hate people like professor Lindzen…..They hate just that and common sense…and different opinions…and valid arguments….and traditional values…and Christians…and conservatives…and (ad infinitum) Otherwise they are very tolerant people 😀

  6. 6
    tjguy says:

    He nailed it on the head. There are so many factors that can and do effect the climate that there is really no way of a truly accurate understanding of the problem at this point. And money, funding, etc. probably plays a role on both sides. Science is not always as unbiased as we are so often led to believer.

    In this case, the term “climate science” is a bit misleading. It certainly is not science in the traditional sense of the world where one uses the experimental method to test one’s hypothesis and yet, that is what they want us to believe. They use the word science a bit too freely here to try and give more credibility to their interpretations than is warranted.

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    Interesting argument for him to use – ignore the politicians and lobbyists and listen to the scientists. The scientists are consistently saying that warming happens, it’s largely due to the effects of human activity, and it’s going to get worse.

  8. 8
    News says:

    Maybe we are missing the real problem: In itself, global warming is just the latest a-crock-alypse by which green daycare moms compete in the middle class virtue stakes.

    And swindlers get rich. But what’s new there? We can be glad when the swindlers are not also murderers. They sometimes are.

    But readers, do consider the readiness with which Heat Doom morphs into a state religion, giving proponents the right to persecute dissenters. With so much money and power at stake, too.

    Cf Bill Nye open to jail time for climate change skeptics

    It’s most likely that the problem will be exported to other science areas. Not necessarily ours in particular, because not much is at stake here.

    Bluntly, it wouldn’t matter if the entire field of, for example, human palaeontology, were a Piltdown Theme Park.

    Darwin’s theory is one of the Big Explains of popular culture. Showing that it is a train wreck within an obscure discipline likely makes no difference.

    Who reads anyway these days? Bimbette has way more viewers than Aristotle or Darwin or anyone else ever had readers. And she Knows, and so will her successors, that Evolution Is True (whatever that means).

    A bigger problem is the implicit assumption that government is in the business of determining science facts for the purpose of punishing dissenters. Many in government would welcome the role; much can be slid under so ample a carpet.

    Such a tool can be used against any discipline of science if powerful political or financial interests sense a risk.

  9. 9

    Common sense says global warming is occurring due to people producing greenhouse gasses. And moral application of risk assessment says to be on the safe side of this issue.

    The proof must be that it isn’t occurring, otherwise the assumption must be that it is occurring, due to the expected catastrophies of what would happen when it is occurring.

    This is a case where what we value, life and things, determines what we should guess the facts to be. It’s similar like when people go looking for a survivor in the wilderness, eventhough there is just a 1 percent chance of them being alive still. Eventhough there is 99 percent chance the person is dead, we should guess the person is alive, and set up a search and rescue mission, and not guess the person is dead, and do nothing.

    Global warming has got a lot of evidence going for it. AFAIK prior to any concerns being raised, it was always considered that some gasses in the atmosphere contribute to the temperature. And this still is the science. So if you put a lot of those gasses in the atmosphere, it makes sense the temperature would rise. That’s common sense.

  10. 10
    bb says:

    Climate alarmists suffer from the same tendency to invoke unjustified extrapolation as Darwinists.

  11. 11
    EvilSnack says:

    If climate change were caused by cuts in government spending, the AGW crowd would claim that Earth’s climate has been invariant since the dawn of time, and that this will destroy the Earth if allowed to continue.

  12. 12
    anthropic says:

    M9

    Here’s the problem: While almost everyone agrees that humans contribute to rising CO2 levels, the actual impact is greatly disputed.

    For example, just 15 years ago the increased warming from a doubling of CO2 was estimated around 4-5 C. Now it is a third of that, and the trend is downward.

    Even if CO2 did cause 2C warming, would this be a net disadvantage or advantage for humanity? People tend to move to warmer places like Texas and Florida a lot more than, say, Wisconsin or Maine. Winter cold kills far more people than summer heat. And 2C warming would lengthen the growing season for crops.

    By the way, some scientists now say that we are on the verge of another Ice Age, but that it is held in abeyance by CO2. Ice Ages are not good for people, nor animals.

    I mentioned crops before, but will add that CO2 fertilization has increased yields roughly 11 percent, while making plants generally more resistant to drought and pollution.

    Finally, it should be noted that the costs of dumping fossil fuels will be many trillions of dollars. Pretty devastating for poorer countries in view of the uncertain benefits.

    Costs versus benefits look mighty dubious. In fact, I’d bet on costs being much larger than any solid benefits.

  13. 13
    Me_Think says:

    I think China should be applauded for ignoring Climate alarmists. You know, the atmosphere in China is crystal clear. Everyone there is breathing fresh air and are very happy that their country has plundered natural resources and are leading the world to a brighter, fresher future despite rampant industrialization.

  14. 14
    anthropic says:

    MT 13

    Huh? If all China did was put CO2 in the air, their cities would indeed enjoy crystal clear skies. It’s the soot, particulates, and other real pollutants that are the reason why northern Chinese have 5 1/2 years of life expectancy chopped off.

    Not CO2.

  15. 15
    Me_Think says:

    anthropic @ 14

    It’s the soot, particulates, and other real pollutants that are the reason why northern Chinese have 5 1/2 years of life expectancy chopped off.

    Which part of “…despite rampant industrialization.” in comment # 13 did you not understand?

    Not CO2

    I hope you are not under the impression that Climate Change is only about CO2

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    anthropic: For example, just 15 years ago the increased warming from a doubling of CO2 was estimated around 4-5 C. Now it is a third of that, and the trend is downward.

    AR5, 2015: likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C
    TAR, 2001: likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C
    NAS, 1979: 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C.
    Arrhenius 1896: 4–5 °C

    anthropic: Even if CO2 did cause 2C warming, would this be a net disadvantage or advantage for humanity?

    As the 2°C warming wouldn’t be distributed evenly, but is concentrated in the higher latitudes, it would mean rising sea levels, changes in both air and ocean currents, and vast changes in regional climates. Also, that’s per doubling of CO2. Without changes in human behavior, it will more than double, and the warming will continue long after humans stop emitting CO2.

    anthropic: And 2C warming would lengthen the growing season for crops.

    Agriculture depends on stability. While some areas will see increased agricultural productivity, most will see decreases. Of course, humans will adapt to the changing environment. However, the traditional method is migration. However, as we can easily observe, migration causes political and cultural friction, often leading to conflict.

    anthropic: By the way, some scientists now say that we are on the verge of another Ice Age, but that it is held in abeyance by CO2.

    If by “on the verge” you mean in about 1500 years, then sure. However, that is no longer likely. The anthropic climate signal is overwhelming the natural cycle.

    anthropic: Finally, it should be noted that the costs of dumping fossil fuels will be many trillions of dollars.

    The sooner the transition occurs, the less expensive and disruptive it will be. The U.S. is planning on spending a trillion dollars on a military jet, just to provide some perspective. Another way to look at it is that (assuming 2.5% growth), the world will have produced about 20 thousand trillion dollars in value by the end of the century. The energy infrastructure has a life cycle of only about 30-50 years, so it has to be replaced and updated anyway.

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    “Common sense says global warming is occurring due to people producing greenhouse gasses.”

    Mo,

    Science requires evidence, no just subjective perception.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    Andre says:

    A volcanic eruption releases more CO2 in a single eruption than what humans can produce in 10 000 years. Last year we had 2 massive eruptions in South America that brought on the current El Nino….

    I find it funny that the average human is considered insignificant by the materialist except when it comes to nature. Apparantly we are more powerful than our cause according to these loons.

  19. 19
    Andre says:

    If there was a prize for twaddle talk Zachriel wins hands down. ZACHRIEL you can of course help with your fairy tale… Stop using a computer. Sell your car and stop buying imported products don’t buy clothes made in a factory and do not drink water from a purifying plant. Givw up all your comforts for the sake of humanity.That will really help the economy and the world will flourish.

  20. 20
    daveS says:

    A volcanic eruption releases more CO2 in a single eruption than what humans can produce in 10 000 years. Last year we had 2 massive eruptions in South America that brought on the current El Nino….

    *faints*

  21. 21
    Phinehas says:

    Maybe the reason we’ve seen so little evolution recently has to do with the commitment to keep everything in the environment exactly as it currently is.

    Or maybe not.

    I do find it strange, however, to see so many evolutionists appear to be at the same time so anti-evolution. It’s almost like they don’t have much faith in the blind, pitiless indifference of nature to adapt in fantastically creative ways to make things better than we could possibly make them or even imagine making them. But isn’t that what got us here? Why the appeal to an intelligent intervention instead of letting nature do what it has done so incredibly well? Surely nature is up to the task.

  22. 22
    anthropic says:

    M13 “I think China should be applauded for ignoring Climate alarmists. You know, the atmosphere in China is crystal clear.”

    Virtually all the discussion of climate change involves CO2, in case you haven’t noticed. To link CO2, a transparent gas, with smoggy air is silly. Your pretense that isn’t what you meant to imply is not credible.

  23. 23
    daveS says:

    Phinehas,

    I do find it strange, however, to see so many evolutionists appear to be at the same time so anti-evolution. It’s almost like they don’t have much faith in the blind, pitiless indifference of nature to adapt in fantastically creative ways to make things better than we could possibly make them or even imagine making them. But isn’t that what got us here? Why the appeal to an intelligent intervention instead of letting nature do what it has done so incredibly well? Surely nature is up to the task.

    Like everyone else, evos often act according to their (perceived) long-term interest. I live in a rather depressed area, heavily dependent on agriculture. Rapid changes in the climate could adversely affect the local economy, which wouldn’t do me any good.

    Waves of distressed migrants fleeing from heavily affected regions could be a global problem. Political instability could trigger US intervention, leading to deaths in my community.

    Simply based on my own self-interest, it’s rational to attempt to avoid a significant increase in human suffering anywhere in the world.

  24. 24
    asauber says:

    “Rapid changes in the climate could adversely affect the local economy”

    What about rapid changes in the weather?

    Aren’t rapid changes in the climate defined as weather events?

    Andrew

  25. 25
    Phinehas says:

    daveS @23:

    Oh I quite understand. When the chips are down, you’ll find me looking to the forces of intelligent design over those of blind, pitiless indifference as well. When self-interest is at stake, I want to see a doctor, thank you very much. But then, I’ve got way less faith in random forces, emergence, and magic than some appear to have.

  26. 26
    daveS says:

    asauber,

    “Rapid changes in the climate could adversely affect the local economy”

    What about rapid changes in the weather?

    I suppose that could be problematic also.

    Aren’t rapid changes in the climate defined as weather events?

    I don’t believe that’s necessarily the case.

  27. 27
    anthropic says:

    Z16

    The trend toward shrinking estimates of climate CO2 sensitivity among peer reviewed, published papers can be found here: https://landshape.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/climate_sensitivity.pdf

    Your comment that “on the verge of an ice age” equals 1,500 years from now is false, as I’m sure you realize. Scientists have said that, based on natural cycles, we would enter another ice age WITHIN 1,500 years, another thing altogether. That means it could have already started by now, which even President Obama’s Science adviser John Holdren admitted publicly.

    Other scientists have even said that human activities thousands of years ago barely prevented an ice age during the middle of the Holocene.

    By the way, the whole Chicken Little “sky is falling” weather hyperbole is looking a little threadbare, too. As even the liberal LA Times recently admitted, so far global warming has been very very good to the US. Americans prefer milder winters, which they are getting, without much negative effects during the other seasons.

    But then, the whole climate alarmism project is built on ignoring the real needs & wants of the people in order to centralize control of their behavior by their betters, so this fact will likely be ignored by the bien-pensants.

  28. 28
    wd400 says:

    A volcanic eruption releases more CO2 in a single eruption than what humans can produce in 10 000 years. Last year we had 2 massive eruptions in South America that brought on the current El Nino

    Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff? Mt Pinatubo, a fairly major eruption I’d say, produced around 0.05 Gt of CO2. That’s about half a days worth of human emissions.

    N

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: A volcanic eruption releases more CO2 in a single eruption than what humans can produce in 10 000 years.

    That is incorrect.
    https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

    anthropic: The trend toward shrinking estimates of climate CO2 sensitivity among peer reviewed, published papers can be found here: https://landshape.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/climate_sensitivity.pdf

    We cited the IPCC, which represents a broad consensus. If the selected papers show otherwise, then the selection process is likely biased.

    Indeed, we took at look at Gregory 2002, which has the highest value. The paper refers to “the canonical range of 1.5–4.5 K”. Clearly, the authors realize that they are the outlier. The graph is clearly biased based on their own citation.

  30. 30
    asauber says:

    From Zach’s Link: “While such efforts are of great scientific
    importance, the clear need to communicate
    the dwarfing of volcanic CO2 by anthropogenic
    CO2 to educators, climate change policy
    makers, the media, and the general public
    is also important.”

    And Zach is just the unpaid volunteer available to do that. 😉

    Andrew

  31. 31
    Andre says:

    I will stand by my claim thanks

    http://m.livescience.com/40451.....ering.html

  32. 32
    Andre says:

    WD400

    And in addition to the current 500 volcanoes on land that diffuse CO2. We also have a staggering 3 000 000 of them in the sea.

    Look I know human beings are insignificant in your eyes, except of course their CO2 emmisions where you seem to think humans are explicably more powerful than nature. But let’s speak some truth here for a change.

    We have absolutely no clue what triggers lighting, so how do you suppose we know accurately the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes.The truth is we simply don’t.

    I am all for a human race that is responsible in how they use resources, but first world countries are the last in the world that should dictate to any other nation on how to use fossil fuels. You see these first world nations have already benefitted from these resources. Others should too.

    Lastly and you can research this yourself the CO2 sinks have a vastly bigger capability to absorb CO2 than what was estimated previously. In addition the healthy plankton population has greatly benefitted from the CO2 increase which in turn has greatly assisted the fish stocks.

    I know this will certainly upset you not that I care. It’s. Almost as if some grand designer thought this all out and created all these contingencies to negate certain events or consiquences. I know it sucks for you and that these damn evil humans have to go but the truth is humans are not yours to decide their fate, just like me you belong to your Creator.

  33. 33
    wd400 says:

    Andre. Can you just admit you were wrong? You claim about volcanoes was out by many orders of magnitude. I can reply to you other comment, but only if you are actually capable of admitting your mistake.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: I will stand by my claim thanks http://m.livescience.com/40451.....ering.html

    You’re standing by your claim, but link to a site that contradicts your claim. The article’s high estimate of 0.6 gt of CO2 emitted by volcanoes is far less than the 35 gt emitted by humans.

    From your own citation: “These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don’t mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2. Humanity certainly is … “

Leave a Reply