# Global Warming Lunacy



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

I know it's deeply politically incorrect to express even the slightest skepticism about so-called Global Warming or mankind's role in it, however I think everyone should be aware in light of recent posts about a scientist named Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT.

From his bio page:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm



> Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
> 
> Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is 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. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)


Professor Lindzen was one of the 11 scientists who prepared the 2001 IPCC report.

Professor Lindzen is deeply skeptical of claims about mankind's involvement in so-called Global Warming, and you owe it to yourself regardless of your prejudices on this matter to read what he has to say.

Professor Lindzen published this paper in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the 2001 IPCC report was released to the public.


----------



## david lim (Mar 30, 2004)

Ok. It makes sense. He doesn't make any claims, but leaves it as "they don't know," and only time will tell. On the panel, do they have more than meteorologists view points in the matter, like professors in anthropology, evolution, conservation, geology, etc? Does the panel understand how factors like an increase in global mean temperature effect different ecosystems? Are they detrimental, beneficial, or none of the above? 

David


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

david lim said:


> Ok. It makes sense. He doesn't make any claims, but leaves it as "they don't know," and only time will tell. On the panel, do they have more than meteorologists view points in the matter, like professors in anthropology, evolution, conservation, geology, etc? Does the panel understand how factors like an increase in global mean temperature effect different ecosystems? Are they detrimental, beneficial, or none of the above?
> 
> David


Dr. Lindzen discusses how many of the predictions made about the effect of increased temperatures are wrong.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Nature's ballance is a very fine one. Recently I heard that increasing the temperature of the sea water by only 1/2 degree for a prolonged period of time is enough to kill the corals in some areas. 

With everything that man produces/releases in the environmenrt I'm inclined to say that we alter it quite a bit.

--Nikolay


----------



## david lim (Mar 30, 2004)

Nature 439, 161-167 (12 January 2006). Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. 

by J. Alan Pounds1, Martín R. Bustamante2, Luis A. Coloma2, Jamie A. Consuegra3, Michael P. L. Fogden1, Pru N. Foster4,12, Enrique La Marca5, Karen L. Masters6, Andrés Merino-Viteri2, Robert Puschendorf7, Santiago R. Ron2,8, G. Arturo Sánchez-Azofeifa9, Christopher J. Still10 and Bruce E. Young11


Stott, P. A. Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1728–1731 (2003)

Barnett, T. P. et al. Penetration of human-induced warming into the world's oceans. Science 309, 284–287 (2005)



2 of these papers come from highly regarded journals, science and nature.

David


----------



## taekwondodo (Dec 14, 2005)

Love the article. World's been changing for the last 200M (or more) years, and will continue to do so... Our impact is immeasurable and as usual, its all about money for the fearmongers.

BTW, I love scuba, fly fishing, etc... and I do believe in environmental responsibility. I'm a catch-and-release kinda guy and leave the corals alone.

But blaming humans for an Ozone hole over the artic that's been discovered for less than 20 years, or changes to the recent weather when we've only been able to study CO2 samples a few 10s of thousands of years (from ice-cores) old out of of the total history (that's less than .0005%, that's a less than a thousandths of a percent) to come up with global warming calculations and models made 10-20 years ago that are hundreds of percent off makes good science to me.

Just in case they are right however, their tactics have suceeded in scaring me: I planted a willow in my back yard that (SWAG) consumes more CO2/day than my cars put out in a week (the thing is a friggen monster). 

Tell you all what: I'll root some willow branches for anyone who wants them and send them to you for free ($5.00 for shipping) so you too can combat your own contributions to global warming!!!

:hippie:


----------



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

Hey, sounds good to me. I didn't know that willow trees used that much CO2. 

As far as change goes, the earth has been changing a lot over its history, but we've only been here for a short time. The concern is that, while the earth will eventually rebound from almost anything we can do (there are only a few things which would cause permanent damage - they would all require so much effort and ill-will that even if you wanted to do them, it would be almost impossible), we arent' sure that we and the things we care about can deal with what we dish out. So, maybe it isn't a problem, but if it is, it's a big one. So, maybe we should just suck it up and deal with it now, so we don't have to find out if we've made a big mistake. 

(incidentally, methane and water vapor are much more potent green house gases than CO2, but, for water vapor, we have no control over it, and for methane, the biggest sources are from food production. So, unless we are willing to get rid of our grazing animals and rice paddies (which, would inheriently cause another problem - food shortages), we have to leave that one alone.)

-Adam


----------



## taekwondodo (Dec 14, 2005)

> incidentally, methane and water vapor are much more potent green house gases than CO2


There was a proposed theory that it wasn't a meteor that took out the dino's, but their impact on the enviroment because of "Dino flatulents..."

I've really got to get to work now - I'm sure that all of the lost productivity we are all blowing on these two topics will somehow negatively impact the environment!


----------



## david lim (Mar 30, 2004)

taekwondodo said:


> Love the article. World's been changing for the last 200M (or more) years, and will continue to do so... Our impact is immeasurable and as usual, its all about money for the fearmongers.
> 
> BTW, I love scuba, fly fishing, etc... and I do believe in environmental responsibility. I'm a catch-and-release kinda guy and leave the corals alone.
> 
> ...


I want a willow tree!!!!! And it isn't because it consumes CO2 (ironic huh?). Once I get a house i'll send you some money for one !!

David


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I would imagine there is an enormous amount of money to be made, or "saved" by postponing any emmissions/power economy changes or public opinion that pushes for said changes.

Imagine not having to meet emmissions regulations AND not having to pay fines for breaking them!!

What we're doing and putting out there into the environment CAN NOT be good. If it kills us if we eat/drink/are exposed to it then I'm sure it isn't good for anything else out there.

The Earth of course goes through changes but we can at least do our part not to interfere any more than we have to. 

People with lots of education and experience and credentials can be just as crooked and ruled by alterior motives as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably much better liars than you or I. I'm not saying any of that report is untrue. I'm saying that we're often *blinded* by credentials. "He's a scientist, he can't possibly be misleading anyone."

Has anyone checked to see who owns Exxon Mobile stock and who doesn't? Or who would benefit from land sales for new nuclear power plants? It's just a thought...that doesn't cross people's minds enough.

Some people may be overestimating our influence but others are definitely underestimating it. Of the two, underestimation is a much more dangerous path.


----------



## taekwondodo (Dec 14, 2005)

david lim said:


> I want a willow tree!!!!! And it isn't because it consumes CO2 (ironic huh?). Once I get a house i'll send you some money for one !!
> 
> David


Be careful for what you wish for...

This thing was a 7 foot tall "stick" seven years ago. The "beast" is over 40-50' tall now and at least that big around. I spent $500 this year just getting my gardener to "prune" it down to that size by the way. The root-ball is visible half-way across my yard.

I really have no Idea how much "Goliath" consumes in CO2 daily, but it's gotta be huge.

as a side note, I'm going to root some of the twigs in my 4K pond and see if it helps with algae this spring... I'll save some of those rooted stems for anyone who wants them.

- Jeff


----------



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm with you banderbe, I don't buy into it. At least not to the point mainstream media does.


----------



## Jim (Apr 4, 2005)

I guess the VAST majority of the scientific community must be wrong. Like you said, global warming must be just more "lunacy" from the "mainstream media." This from the same Fox News crowd that would have us throw out the science of evolution in favor of intelligent design. 

I'm sure we can find some common ground -- aquatic plants are cool  

Jim


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

> I guess the VAST majority of the scientific community must be wrong.


I do not think the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. I am not sure that the doom and gloom predictions related to global warming are the belief of the vast majority scientific community. I do believe that some scientists overstate the understanding of phenomena (evolution and global warming) and reduce their credibility.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Its sad and annoying when a few members of the scientific community ruin it for everyone. I don't think most scientists feel the end of the world is comming but it can be very tempting to tell the worst to try and open peoples eyes. Not a good technique though The media often blows it out of proportion also, a panel of scientist predict a .5-7 degreeC change for the next 100 years, saying that honestly they feel we could expect no more than 2 degrees and what does the media do..Oh God 7 degrees, nearly 10.... You get the Day ofter Tomorrow secenerio playing and making people look silly if they believe it (that movie, btw, was very false and many of the events that happened in it would not happen due to simple physics).

One of my professors is a paleoclimatologist who works with one of the 20 climate model computers. Listen to him talk though and he is very down to earth, very resonable in his predictions. Sure, he discusses extreeme because all information is important, but he is very mainstream, middle of the road in his actual beliefs about the subject. All his honest predictions fall within the info given in the IPCC.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Why can't some scientist disagree?

Probelm is, that these other clowns with specific agendas get in the mix. 
There are arguements to both sides, but by and large, and few, very few disagree it's occuring and we are helping it.

This issue is not about *natural warming trends, it's about extremely rapid warming trends that we are causing.*

When it comes to climate change, we have the most to lose both economically in the long term(not the 1/4 business reports or political cycles).

Sort vs long term economics and management is not something humans are very good at. Katrina was a good example in the recent US memory. Fools are going to go back and rebuild then cry about a distaer for living below sea level after removing all the wetlands, their mantra as well most environmental distaers: "If we had only known..........."

Scientist warned them, but they took no heed. Complacency. "What if the scientist are wrong" is a favorite arguement.

The real, question should be, "what if they are right, better safe than sorry when it affects everyone and everything."

Proactive change is much cheaper and wiser in the long run when it comes to managing any resource. History has clearly shown this to be the case in a wide array of fields.

Like adding more and more fish to a small tank, eventually things are going to go haywire.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## mrbelvedere138 (Jan 18, 2006)

I simply feel that climate shifts happen and there is little, if nothing, we can do to prevent them. Anyone ever heard of the Little Ice Age? Look it up, quite fascinating. And this was only a short time ago (geologically speaking). The fact of the matter is that we are actually in an Ice Age right now, if you want to get technical. So, therefore if it is getting warmer then we must be coming out of said Ice Age, am I correct? Natural cycle. Nature is a self-correcting thing. Let it do so. 

P.S. I am rather looking forward to a Day After Tomorrow sort of situation. I hate hot weather (I loooove Winter) and summer is right around the corner.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

The next 100,000 years or so will tell if our current notions about global warming are right or not . I'm glad a few people have the guts to stand up and take a contrary position to what has moved from the realm of theory into the realm of self-evident fact for many people. The truth is, we know pathetically little about how the earth's climate works. We don't even know if it's going to rain in Cleveland tomorrow or not. Maybe it's warming and maybe it isn't. Maybe it's our fault and maybe it isn't. Maybe volcanic eruptions have dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere in a single day than mankind has throughout recorded history. Maybe warming the planet up by 2 or 3 degrees will have unforseen wonderful benefits. Maybe it's fortuitous that we're pumping out a lot of CO2 these days - just in time to ward off a huge ice age. I find this to be about as plausible as any other scenario.

People fear change. People are fascinated by doomsday scenarios. People are easily swayed by the media. Much of what is passed off as "scientific proof" is personal belief supported by biased statistics and anecdotal observation. Worthy of study? Sure. Worthy of making huge societal sacrifices to change things? Maybe, but I'm not convinced yet.


----------



## neil1973 (Feb 23, 2006)

There has been a lot of discussion on this thread along the lines of is it real is it not. Also many people suggest, and rightly so, that climate change is very complicated and not necessarily very well understood.

Assuming for arguments sake that climate change may be real, at least to some extent, then what I think would be really interesting is to hear people’s opinions on:
a)	What effects will be seen?
b)	What will be the actual impacts on peoples lives if any?
c)	Where will these impacts take place? Which people will be affected?

Regards
Neil


----------

