[ExI] [wta-talk] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Alfio Puglisi<alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> CO2 sensitivity is estimated looking at past climate trends,
> especially from ice core data, and how the variation of the CO2 level
> influenced the temperature (taking into account external forcings like
> solar irradiation, etc). The numbers come out at around 3°C /
> doubling, but there's a disturbing tail of low-probability results of
> 6°C/doubling or more, that does not want to go away.
>
### You are familiar with the finding that for the most part CO2
concentration *trails* changes in historical temperatures? In other
words, CO2 is primarily forced by temperature, with only a secondary
feedback effect (presumably) acting the other way. This essentially
precludes the use of ice core data for the purpose of estimating
climate sensitivity to CO2.

-----------------------------------------

> If a new record year is what you want, just wait a few more years.

### Yeah, let's wait.
-----------------
>
> Given that most nations didn't even follow the Kyoto protocol, I find
> it difficult to understand how one could measure its cost. Can you
> give me a link for that number? How was it estimated?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html

----------------------------

 Also adaptation cost goes up with
> time.

### Really? Why?

---------------------

 What is the scenario for that estimate? and what year?

### IPCC predictions around 2007.

------------------------
> "precise" is a term that can be qualified. If you mean "precise to
> 0.1°C in 2100" then no, we can't to that. If you mean "precise" as
> discriminating between cooling, stationary and warming of at least a
> few °C then yes, we can do that.

### These "few degC" is all that counts, since 1 C is nothing but 10C
could be troublesome. You need to be able to predict to an accuracy of
1C or better, verified by observation, not curve fitting to historical
data, to justify spending trillions of dollars.
-----------------------

> Since you seem convinced that we cannot reliably predict warming for
> the next century, and since current CO2 levels are known to have a
> forcing of a few watts/m^2, it follows that you somehow assume that
> this forcing will have no measurable effect.
>
### You do not know climate sensitivity to CO2, and I assume nothing.
All I say is there is insufficient data to predict future climate at
this time.
 -----------------------------
>
> IPCC reports are a summary of current scientific research. If you
> don't believe it, there's nothing I can do, except encouraging you to
> read it and cross-check its statements with current scientific
> research.

### IPCC reports are an excerpt of data designed to support a
particular predetermined conclusion, namely the need to expand
government control of our lives.

Rafal