Prof. Richard Lindzen: IPCC’s greenhouse narrative is becoming implausible,

[cancel2 2022]

.
Climate alarmists are terrified of engaging with Richard Lindzen. They know full well that he's head and shoulders above them in terms of knowledge, intellect and firepower. The usual scum and detritus are banned apart from McMoonshi'ite, his bullshit is always extra special.

London, 23 September – A prominent climate scientist has warned that the picture of climate change presented in the IPCC’s narrative is simplistic, ill-conceived, and undermined by observational evidence.

In a new discussion paper Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) points out that the official picture, focusing narrowly on carbon dioxide as a warming agent, becomes implausible when applied to the details of the climate system.

According to Lindzen,

“If you are going to blame everything on carbon dioxide, you have to explain why, on all timescales, temperatures in the tropics are extremely stable while those in high latitudes are much more variable. The IPCC’s story is that small amounts of greenhouse warming near the equator are ‘amplified’ at high latitudes. But neither theory nor data support the idea of amplification.”

Instead, says Lindzen, this pattern – of stable tropical temperatures and fluctuating ones in high latitudes – is mostly a function of natural processes in the atmosphere and oceans; in other words, changes in oceanic and atmospheric currents that transport heat poleward while drawing varying amounts of heat out of the tropics. These changes in transport affect the tropics, but they are not determined by the tropics.

“The changes in the earth’s so-called temperature are mainly due to changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles – at least for major changes. The changes in tropical temperature, which are influenced by greenhouse processes, are a minor contribution.”

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-narrative.pdf

https://www.thegwpf.org/publications...cientist-says/

[T. A. Gardner]

Back in the 70's the climate scientists said the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFC's. If we banned them in 30 or so years the hole would disappear. We banned them, replacing them with HCFCs or HFCs.

It's been 40 years now and the hole in the ozone layer is still there, still the same size, and the same 'scientists' have found a new bigger one in the South Atlantic.

Now those same "scientists" are telling us if we ban HFCs, it's because now they have morphed into being a "greenhouse" gas worse than CO2.

I don't believe these retards for a New York second. Fuck them! They don't know what the hell they're talking about. Why the hell would anyone with any sort of capacity to reason believe them? They've been wrong on this 100% of the time in the past. A cheap psychic could do better calling outcomes. Fuck the greentards.

[Grokmaster]

"OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE" ,ALSO KNOWN AS "EMPIRICAL DATA", HAS ALWAYS BEEN BLOCKED , ALTERED OR IGNORED BY THE WARMIST CLIMATISTA RELIGION....

[cancel2 2022]

.
I live in the tropics and can readily endorse what the prof is saying. It doesn't seem noticeably hotter now than it did 30 odd years ago.

[cancel2 2022]

"OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE" ,ALSO KNOWN AS "EMPIRICAL DATA", HAS ALWAYS BEEN BLOCKED , ALTERED OR IGNORED BY THE WARMIST CLIMATISTA RELIGION....

There is sadly much truth in that, they cling to their climate models rather than actually get real empirical data. Lately though, even the likes of Gavin Schmidt of GISS has been bemoaning the state of climate models especially since CMIP6 models were introduced. Almost invariably they are running very hot and out of kilter with the real world!

https://scitechdaily.com/updated-cmi...ntific-biases/

[Bigdog]

“The changes in the earth’s so-called temperature are mainly due to changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles – at least for major changes. The changes in tropical temperature, which are influenced by greenhouse processes, are a minor contribution.”

Yep, to have weather you need an atmosphere and uneven heating of the planet's surface; convection and conduction are ignored by the leftist Death Cult.

[cancel2 2022]

.

The detailed cloud processes are still of large uncertainty.”

The parameterisation of cloud behavior has always been the weak point of Global Circulation Models. While acolytes of anthropogenic global warming are quick to claim that the models are based on ‘science’ (or more properly, physics) it is only a half-truth. Much in the models is based on physics; however, for the foreseeable future, computers cannot handle the computational detail of cloud-energy exchanges. Therefore, assumptions have to be made about cloud behavior, and detailed computation replaced by assumed average behavior. That is not unlike replacing Einstein’s elegant and succinct formula — E = mc^2 — with E = mc^2 +/- e, where “e” is an uncertainty introduced to adjust the final answer to what is subjectively thought to be the ‘correct’ answer. In other words, the result is no longer strictly ‘physics.’

Richard Lindzen