# Articles Tagged "Richard Lindzen"

Sorted by: Date Posted | Views
Wednesday, June 6th 2012, 10:25 AM EDT
Hadley CRUT3 global temperature anomaly. Reproduced from Prof. Lindzen's presentation to House of Commons, Slide 11 of 58 -- with superimposed absolute temperature in red on left added for comparison.

What percentage change in global mean temperature (GMT) has occurred since the Industrial Revolution began? This can be calculated only by using an absolute temperature scale. Answer = +0.3%.

Can this be so alarming to Al Gore? Indeed, the Kelvin absolute scale for temperature is one of only seven basic units of measure recognized in the International System of Units. Temperature measures the heat content of a substance -- a simple linear relation so long as the zero of the temperature scale is properly placed. Heat itself is a form of energy measured in joules, calories, or BTUs. The thermodynamic science of heat flow requires the use of Kelvin because Kelvin eliminates the problem of negative temperature readings encountered with the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales. Heat can flow into and out of any mass, be it solid, liquid, or gas. Reduction of heat makes it colder. There is no such thing as negative heat (anti-heat?). Therefore, negative temperature conveys no meaning, either.

Absolute zero temperature occurs at -273.15º C, or -491.67º F, and signifies a state of matter displaying complete absence of heat. The PBS NOVA television program broadcast an excellent introduction to the science of cryogenics and its fascinating history. Anders Celsius invented his centigrade scale in the late 18th century. Zero of Celsius scale is the temperature of ice-water (32º F), while 100º C is the boiling point (212º F) of water at sea level -- both chosen by Celsius because they are easily reproduced as experimental temperature calibration standards in laboratories around the world. In 1848, Lord Kelvin invented his eponymous thermodynamic temperature scale which employs the same "degree" as the Celsius scale but shifts the zero point to absolute zero1. Therefore, any temperature value recorded in Celsius can be easily converted to Kelvin just by adding 273.15.
Monday, January 7th 2013, 5:47 AM EST
Summary: We’ve looked at plenty of false (or at least temporarily not proven) forecasts by American experts about wars and climate. The rule seems to be that political correctness is rewarded, irrespective of accuracy. Today we see the opposite, accurate forecasts by an eminent scientists — for which he’s ridiculed. It’s no way to run a superpower, except on the rocks. We can do better.

Contents

1.Contempt for science
2.Speech by Richard Lindzen
3.Other articles by Prof Lindzen
4.Other Climate Forecasts
(1) Contempt for science

One of the great oddities of the debate about climate science is the contempt for scientists displayed by the lay cheerleaders on both sides. Scientists are authorities, unless they disagree with the true dogma — then they’re fools and charlatans. Previous posts looked at forecasts that have proved false, or not correct so far.

Today we look at a speech made 23 years ago by a MIT professor. It looks good today, still accurate despite the advances in climate science. Furthermore his forecast of no warming larger than natural variability during the next century has proven accurate so far — after 23 years have elapsed.
Wednesday, February 22nd 2012, 5:54 PM EST
At a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by “settled science”. They’re not new, but some of it was new to me.

Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes half this increase to human activity.

Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”

He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.

Updated below with MUST READ comments from Piers Corbyn
Monday, February 27th 2012, 1:11 AM EST
Global Warming: How to approach the science by Prof Richard S. Lindzen Pt-1/2

Uploaded by globalclimatedebate on Mar 11, 2012

Revised part 1 of 2 Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar Held at the UK House of Commons on the 22nd February 2012

See below for Pt 2
Thursday, April 5th 2012, 5:47 AM EDT
We welcome the fact that RSL accepts that:

There has been a large increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to emissions resulting from human activity over the past 150 years (although we do not agree that “equivalent CO2” concentration has yet doubled, as claimed by RSL on Slide 46 Global average surface temperature has very probably warmed by about 0.7oC in the same period (RSL Slide 10, or 0.8oC in Slide 4), ), Increasing carbon dioxide alone, and in the absence of climate feedbacks, should cause about 1oC warming for each doubling (RSL Slide 3).

We agree that scientific arguments should be based on physical reasoning and data, without exaggerating either the effects or our certainty (or uncertainty) about them. RSL is right to draw attention to uncertainties in climate change feedbacks e.g. associated with clouds. However, it is wrong to infer from this that we know nothing about these feedbacks. Contemporary science suggests unambiguously that there is a substantial risk that these feedbacks will lead to human-induced surface temperature change considerably larger than 1oC in global average this century and beyond.

Click source to read FULL critique to MUST SEE YOUTUBE: Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar (Global Warming: How to approach the science) held at the House of Commons

Also see below for more links (with comments from Lord Monckton and Gordon J. Fulks)
Monday, March 12th 2012, 11:49 AM EDT
The following YouTube is the third and last part of the MUST SEE YOUTUBE: Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar (Global Warming: How to approach the science) held at the House of Commons

Richard Linzen takes in some interesting Questions & gives even more interesting Answers at the recent House of Commons Seminar.

Richard Lindzen Q & A at the House of Commons 22nd of February

Thursday, February 9th 2012, 5:24 AM EST
Foreword to Andrew Montford's Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change

Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.

The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.

The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.

Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
Sunday, June 12th 2011, 7:47 AM EDT
[CLICK] to download the radio show from Monday, 25 January 2010:

Alan Jones invites Lord Christopher Monckton into the studio to discuss Climate Change

See below for interview with Richard Lindzen and Alan Jones
Sunday, July 26th 2009, 10:43 AM EDT
A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
Wednesday, October 20th 2010, 5:29 PM EDT

Professors Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M and Richard Lindzen from MIT debate the scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming, while University of Virginia Law School professors Jonathan Cannon and Jason Johnston discuss the policy implications

This is a 1:54 recording, Richard takes the chair at 31 minuets, who came out best?
66 articles found
showing page 2 of 7
« previous    1 2 3 4 5 6 7    next »
Articles Recently Viewed

7,352

Donations
• » Please support the site by making a donation. No matter how big or small, your contribution helps to support the cause.
See Stephen Wilde's Latest Article

All Time Most Read
Climate Depot Feed
• » Feed Error