Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Some Schmo]

CO2 is plant food, and as we all know, when you go to a buffet, you never leave anything uneaten.

The CO2 is plant food argument is actually one of the more entertaining idiocies coming from that camp. It's as though they've never heard the phrase "too much." Next time they're thirsty, I'll suggest they go jump in Lake Michigan.

[_Water Dog]

What Dog? Suddenly your boy Lindzen isn’t good enough?

Can you show me where Lindzen said, "From 100 years of established science, we know that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?" As with the dark helmet, I await your response.

[_Res Ipsa]

What Dog? Suddenly your boy Lindzen isn’t good enough?

Can you show me where Lindzen said, "From 100 years of established science, we know that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?" As with the dark helmet, I await your response.

Oh you and your silly games, Dog. I never claimed that either Lindzen or Dark Helmet quoted the other. I said that even your hero Lindzen doesn’t deny that CO2 can drive climate change. That’s why the denier label fits you so well — you deny facts that even contrarian scientists don’t deny.

Now, here’s some easy homework for you Dog. What exactly does Lindzen say about the ability of CO2 to drive climate? Go on. It’s not that hard.

[_DarkHelmet]

Let's start with this. One Hundred Years of Established Science. Okay. Show for me where in the Established Science textbook it states, "Through empirical data collected over the past 100 years, we can now state it as established fact, that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere."

I will await your reference for this claim you just made.

I'm not sure where you got that quote. Since you put quotes around it, I assume you are quoting someone and you should ask that person to find that quote in a text book.

You agreed with the moron in the youtube comments that it's a fact that CO2 cannot drive climate change because it is a trace gas. I am arguing that that statement is NOT a fact. You don't agree with me, so you apparently believe that statement is a fact. Why do you believe it to be a fact that CO2 cannot drive climate change? Also keep in mind that the youtube account that made that comment is likely a troll trying to make GW deniers look stupid. In fact, if I was to troll youtube comments with a fake account to make GW deniers look stupid, I would make that comment and hope I got some bites. Good job.

[_Water Dog]

Oh you and your silly games, Dog. I never claimed that either Lindzen or Dark Helmet quoted the other. I said that even your hero Lindzen doesn’t deny that CO2 can drive climate change. That’s why the denier label fits you so well — you deny facts that even contrarian scientists don’t deny.

Now, here’s some easy homework for you Dog. What exactly does Lindzen say about the ability of CO2 to drive climate? Go on. It’s not that hard.

Ah, so in keeping with your established pattern, you lied again.

Let's review.

DH said

I haven't watched the video, but I'm loving the comments section. A bunch of geniuses there.

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

That's a fact? Is this a real fact or one of those alternative facts?

I respond.

Doesn't that burden of proof lie with your side of the debate? You tell me whether that is established as a fact or not. This quote merely states that such and such has NOT been established as a fact. It is a fact, that such and such is not a fact. So you tell me, is it actually a fact? For this quote to be wrong, it would have to be a fact. Can show for me that it is an established fact that CO2 CAN drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?

This is not complicated, or unreasonable. I didn't observe the comment DH refers to. In the comments of the youtube video, I understand. But DH goes out of his way to mock this comment, as evidence against Lindzen or the "denier" side of the debate. Assuming we're all at least average intelligence, I don't need to explain this. DH's comment speaks for itself. DH didn't have to comment at all. He even states that he hasn't watched the debate. But he shows up to mock CAGW skeptics, pointing to this specific comment.

Well, what's wrong with the comment? Since it's such an obviously dumb comment, to a point that justifies ridicule, that should be easy to answer, right?

Self-appointed authority and stalker shows up.

Read the science, Dog. If you had, you wouldn’t ask such dumbass questions. And, yes, Imma gonna stalk you in every climate change thread in which you post your ignorant denier drivel. Even your go to authority Richard Lindzen doesn’t deny this.

I asked a "dumbass question?" And then you go on to assert, "Even ... Richard Lindzen doesn’t deny this." Oh, RLLY? I'm gonna need a reference for that one.

Not content, let's dig the whole deeper!

Some guy makes a claim that completely contradicts over 100 years of established science...

One Hundred Years of Established Science?!? WTF!?!?

One Hundred Years of Established Science. Okay. Show for me where in the Established Science textbook it states, "Through empirical data collected over the past 100 years, we can now state it as established fact, that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere."

Now RI chooses to help DH dig the hole deeper.

What Dog? Suddenly your boy Lindzen isn’t good enough?

Oh, he'd be more than good enough. I'll accept that reference.

Can you show me where Lindzen said, "From 100 years of established science, we know that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?" As with the dark helmet, I await your response.

Oh you and your silly games, Dog. I never claimed that either Lindzen or Dark Helmet quoted the other. I said that even your hero Lindzen doesn’t deny that CO2 can drive climate change. That’s why the denier label fits you so well — you deny facts that even contrarian scientists don’t deny.

Are you playing a game of semantics while accusing me of playing a game of semantics? No crap Lindzen didn't quote DH. Lindzen has never heard of DH, why would he quote him? Or the youtube commenter? What the hell are you talking about right now? The matter at hand is whether Lindzen would agree with the comment, or not? No? I don't care about the exact word-for-word phrasing. Show me where Lindzen has ever said anything that would disagree with this.

Is it one hundred years of established scientific fact that CO2 in trace amounts of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere can drive the earth's climate, or not?

If it's not a fact, then there is nothing to ridicule. The commenter is right in stating that it's NOT a fact... if it's not a fact. So, is it, or isn't it?

[_DarkHelmet]

The commenter is right in stating that it's NOT a fact... if it's not a fact. So, is it, or isn't it?

You spent paragraphs embarrassing yourself before revealing in your final sentence that you do not understand what the youtube comment said. He did not say anything was NOT a fact. He stated what WAS a fact. Let's go all the way back to the original comment that you are defending so vehemently.

Code: Select all

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

I disagree with this statement. You apparently agree. Can you explain why this is a fact?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Code: Select all

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

As a probably off-topic aside; in chemistry, 400ppm isn't considered trace.

[_Res Ipsa]

Oh goody. Another post where WD accuses me of lying, and I get to show his dishonest treatment of what other folks say.

Dark Helmet (who I'm pretty sure is not WD's husband. C'mon Shades ) quoted a comment on a youtube video:

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

Here's how Dog misrepresents it:

This quote merely states that such and such has NOT been established as a fact

Dog's description is 100% false. The commenter asserted an affirmative claim: that CO2 cannot drive the climate because it is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere. The commenter bears the burden of proof on that. But Dog mischaracterizes the comment so he can pick a silly fight over the burden of proof.

I respond to Dog's silliness:

Even your go to authority Richard Lindzen doesn’t deny this.

Maybe Dog has trouble understanding context, but I think it's pretty clear that "this" refers to the original comment quoted by Dark Helmet.

Dark Helmet responds:

Some guy makes a claim that completely contradicts over 100 years of established science, calls his claim a "fact", and the burden of proof is on me to prove his unsubstantiated claim that he pulled out his butt is not a fact? WTF? CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas over 100 years ago. It's well established.

Now, for a fair minded person who is interested in the truth, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a reasonable refutation of the notion that CO2 "can't" drive climate. It's implied by the fact that, if you add more, the atmosphere warms.

But this is WD, and he's bound and determined to pick a fight over something. Anything will do. Here's what he demands as proof:

Show for me where in the Established Science textbook it states, "Through empirical data collected over the past 100 years, we can now state it as established fact, that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere."

Complete and utter straw man. Did Dark Helmet claim there was a book titled "Established Science?" No. Did Dark Helmet utter the quoted sentence? No.

But Water Dog knows this. In fact, he knows what he's doing. He's moving the goalpost. Something he falsely accuses others of doing on a regular basis. (Remember, deniers regularly and falsely accuse others of things they do themselves.) Where did the goalposts start?

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

Where has Dog moved them to?

Show for me where in the Established Science textbook it states, "Through empirical data collected over the past 100 years, we can now state it as established fact, that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere."

Hell, Dog's moved the goalposts into the next stadium.

So I jump in:

What Dog? Suddenly your boy Lindzen isn’t good enough?

Again, context. I've already told him about what Lindzen doesn't dispute. But Dog, for some reason, thinks I'm claiming that Lindzen said the sentence he made up to move the goalposts! Weird.

Can you show me where Lindzen said, "From 100 years of established science, we know that CO2 can drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere?

I didn't say that LIndzen said those words. Dog knows that. But now he's moved the goalpost to: find a quote from Lindzen that is identical to the quote I (WD) made up.

Jesus Christ on a cracker.

(I did misattribute the quote that WD made up to Dark Helmet. I apologize for any resulting confusion.)

So Dog, does or does not Lindzen agree that:

CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

Where the goalposts started, after all...

[_Water Dog]

The commenter is right in stating that it's NOT a fact... if it's not a fact. So, is it, or isn't it?

You spent paragraphs embarrassing yourself before revealing in your final sentence that you do not understand what the youtube comment said. He did not say anything was NOT a fact. He stated what WAS a fact. Let's go all the way back to the original comment that you are defending so vehemently.

Code: Select all

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

I disagree with this statement. You apparently agree. Can you explain why this is a fact?

Weak sauce, DH, weak sauce. Now you're trying to take a queue from RI and play this game of semantics. Only an unreasonable person would take a remark such as this, and from the very casual context of a youtube comment no less, and interpret it in such a literal way. This person was not attempting to argue for proof of a negative. Since RI wants to take your football and run with it, probably best to let him have a go at it. He has already tried to generalize the comment by saying,

...even your hero Lindzen doesn’t deny that CO2 can drive climate change. That’s why the denier label fits you so well — you deny facts that even contrarian scientists don’t deny...What exactly does Lindzen say about the ability of CO2 to drive climate? Go on. It’s not that hard.

See, RI recognizes that this youtube comment was not meant in the literal way that you are now arguing. Rather than quibbling over a line in the sand, the value of 0.04%, he wants to shift the goal post and just focus on whether CO2 can drive the climate at all. That's a much smarter approach. I mean, we can reasonably speculate that CO2 at 100% would have an impact, right?

(tempted to make a joke about hyperventilation)

Now, we still haven't even gotten into that pesky word, "drive." Drive implies something much different than other words, like "affect." Does CO2 affect the climate? Yes. And RI would be right to state that Lindzen would also agree with this. But, does it "drive" it? I'm not sure Lindzen would actually agree with that, much less the much more specific claim that he'd agree it can be driven by quantities < 0.04%.

In fact, Lindzen addresses this very point in the debate. It's the central theme of his argument, in fact. Not this 0.04% value specifically, but he speaks to the high dimensionality of the climate system and how alarmists are only able to support their claims, and weakly, when they reduce the matter to a linear problem involving only CO2.

I'll just quote him. Here you go DT, I'm gonna help you out. My crude transcription of a portion of what he said in his intro remarks.

We're talking about a political problem utilizing science. When you do that you need two things. You need a simple picture of the science, so people feel they understand it. And you need to be assured that all scientists agree, so you don't have to worry about it. Neither of these things are particularly correct, but they make you feel good.

I am concerned with the physical system we're dealing with. And, it isn't simple. It isn't one dimensional. The ocean isn't passive. And, something that is of interest to me, the upper level cirrus, which displaces the greenhouse gases, they're not constant. What are we looking at? We're looking at a system that consists in two turbulent fluids, the atmosphere and the ocean. They're interacting with each other in a very intricate way.

We're on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. The oceanic component has circulation systems with time scales ranging from years to millennia. And these systems carry heat to and from the surface, which is never in equilibrium with the sun because of this interchange with the ocean. And that provides variability that requires no external forcing.

In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a very irregular surface, which you see here every day. A vital constituent of the atmosphere is water in the liquid solid vapor phases, and the changes in phase have huge energetic ramifications. The energy budget of the system involves the absorption and reemission of two hundred watts per meter squared.

Doubling CO2, what does that do? It involves a two percent perturbation in this budget. As do minor changes in clouds and other features, which are imminently common. What I want to stress, is the ability of natural systems to produce large temporal variability without the need for external non-steady forcing. Nobody seriously questions the existence of solar cycles, of reversals of magnetic fields, all of which occur without explicit temporal forcing. There is no reason to suppose that the atmosphere, or that our climate system, is any different.

Now what is the approach to this problem, of those who promote alarm? The approach is the following. This complex, multi-factor system. The climate. Which itself consists in many variables, is described by just one variable. The globally averaged temperature anomaly, and is controlled by a 2% perturbation in the energy budget due to one among many variables, namely CO2.

And although we are not sure of the budget for this variable, we know precisely what policies to implement in order to control it. This represents an extraordinary claim. And usually, extradorinaiy claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do we have this evidence? Of course not.

Instead, we blame every natural disaster on global warming. Cold on warming, warmth on warming, floods on warming, droughts on warming. The Syrian Civil War, on warming. Obesity on warming. As it's long ben noted, something that accounts for everything, accounts for nothing. Many scientists find it convenient, given political correctness, to take the position that alarming impacts are possible. Not only is it impossible to prove something impossible, but this stance hardly justifies policy certainty. Also, the notion that something is true, unless proven untrue, turns the scientific method on its head.

Now, instead of discussing the real policy, we discuss minute changes in temperature, and so on. And then we bring in all the disaster scenarios, but, you know, they are not even based on models. They were already introduced in a kind of science fiction way in the early sixties, and even late fifties. Now Goebbels claimed that a big enough lie, repeated often enough, comes to be regarded as truth. Climate alarmism is a perfect example.

I dunno. Lindzen's opening statement seems to be a very full-throated argument that supports the spirit of what the commenter DH quoted meant to convey with his comment. Which is to say that it's NOT a fact that the climate CAN be DRIVEN by CO2 @< 0.04%. DH, perhaps you don't realize it, but that commenter is merely restating the basic claim of CAGW alarmists in reverse. Lindzen spent 5 minutes and ~600 words saying effectively the same thing that this youtube commenter reduced to a single 19 word sentence.

[_Res Ipsa]

Never forget. Climate deniers always accuse their opponents of what they themselves do.

Weak sauce, my husband, weak sauce. Now you're trying to take a queue from RI and play this game of semantics.

The only person playing semantics is Water Dog, who thinks a fair minded person would completely change what the comment actually says. The claim that "CO2 can't drive climate change because it's such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere" has been a staple of the denialsphere for decades. Deniers posted page after page illustrating how small the percentage was and ridiculing the notion that such a tiny percentage of anything could alter the climate. So, it is completely fair to take the commenter exactly at his word -- it's what dozens and dozens and dozens of deniers also claim.

...even your hero Lindzen doesn’t deny that CO2 can drive climate change. That’s why the denier label fits you so well — you deny facts that even contrarian scientists don’t deny...What exactly does Lindzen say about the ability of CO2 to drive climate? Go on. It’s not that hard.

See, RI recognizes that this youtube comment was not meant in the literal way that you are now arguing. Rather than quibbling over a line in the sand, the value of 0.04%, he wants to shift the goal post and just focus on whether CO2 can drive the climate at all. That's a much smarter approach. I mean, we can reasonably speculate that CO2 at 100% would have an impact, right?

Once again, Dog completely misrepresents my comment. Maybe Dog doesn't know that the approximate percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere today is 0.04% In other words, the commenter is saying that CO2 can't drive climate at its present concentration. That's absolute rubbish because the expected increase in temperature from radiative forcing alone is the same for each doubling. So, the increase in temperature resulting from .01% to .02% is the same as the increase in temperature resulting from .02% to .04% is the same increase resulting from .04% to .08% and so on. In fact, the smaller the percentage of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere, the greater will be the temperature increase that results from adding a fixed amount of CO2.

So, if the commenter says that CO2 "can't" drive the climate at .04%, he is actually claiming that CO2 can NEVER drive the climate.

Now, we still haven't even gotten into that pesky word, "drive." Drive implies something much different than other words, like "affect." Does CO2 affect the climate? Yes. And RI would be right to state that Lindzen would also agree with this. But, does it "drive" it? I'm not sure Lindzen would actually agree with that, much less the much more specific claim that he'd agree it can be driven by quantities < 0.04%.

For a guy who complains that others want to play semantics, Dog is sure into the semantics game. Yes, drive is a term of art in climate science. Everything that affects the climate is divided into "drivers" and "feedbacks". All "driver" means is that an exogenous change in an input (i.e., one not caused by some other change in the climate system) results in some change. And, yes, "affect" means "change." In this case, when humans burn fossil fuels and add CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 is a driver. When that temperature increase melts the permafrost and releases sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere, that release is a feedback, as it was caused by a change in the climate system. If increasing CO2 affects the climate, it is driving climate change.

In fact, Lindzen addresses this very point in the debate. It's the central theme of his argument, in fact. Not this 0.04% value specifically, but he speaks to the high dimensionality of the climate system and how alarmists are only able to support their claims, and weakly, when they reduce the matter to a linear problem involving only CO2.

I'll just quote him. Here you go DT, I'm gonna help you out. My crude transcription of a portion of what he said in his intro remarks.

We're talking about a political problem utilizing science. When you do that you need two things. You need a simple picture of the science, so people feel they understand it. And you need to be assured that all scientists agree, so you don't have to worry about it. Neither of these things are particularly correct, but they make you feel good.

I am concerned with the physical system we're dealing with. And, it isn't simple. It isn't one dimensional. The ocean isn't passive. And, something that is of interest to me, the upper level cirrus, which displaces the greenhouse gases, they're not constant. What are we looking at? We're looking at a system that consists in two turbulent fluids, the atmosphere and the ocean. They're interacting with each other in a very intricate way.

We're on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. The oceanic component has circulation systems with time scales ranging from years to millennia. And these systems carry heat to and from the surface, which is never in equilibrium with the sun because of this interchange with the ocean. And that provides variability that requires no external forcing.

In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a very irregular surface, which you see here every day. A vital constituent of the atmosphere is water in the liquid solid vapor phases, and the changes in phase have huge energetic ramifications. The energy budget of the system involves the absorption and reemission of two hundred watts per meter squared.

Doubling CO2, what does that do? It involves a two percent perturbation in this budget. As do minor changes in clouds and other features, which are imminently common. What I want to stress, is the ability of natural systems to produce large temporal variability without the need for external non-steady forcing. Nobody seriously questions the existence of solar cycles, of reversals of magnetic fields, all of which occur without explicit temporal forcing. There is no reason to suppose that the atmosphere, or that our climate system, is any different.

Now what is the approach to this problem, of those who promote alarm? The approach is the following. This complex, multi-factor system. The climate. Which itself consists in many variables, is described by just one variable. The globally averaged temperature anomaly, and is controlled by a 2% perturbation in the energy budget due to one among many variables, namely CO2.

And although we are not sure of the budget for this variable, we know precisely what policies to implement in order to control it. This represents an extraordinary claim. And usually, extradorinaiy claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do we have this evidence? Of course not.

Instead, we blame every natural disaster on global warming. Cold on warming, warmth on warming, floods on warming, droughts on warming. The Syrian Civil War, on warming. Obesity on warming. As it's long ben noted, something that accounts for everything, accounts for nothing. Many scientists find it convenient, given political correctness, to take the position that alarming impacts are possible. Not only is it impossible to prove something impossible, but this stance hardly justifies policy certainty. Also, the notion that something is true, unless proven untrue, turns the scientific method on its head.

Now, instead of discussing the real policy, we discuss minute changes in temperature, and so on. And then we bring in all the disaster scenarios, but, you know, they are not even based on models. They were already introduced in a kind of science fiction way in the early sixties, and even late fifties. Now Goebbels claimed that a big enough lie, repeated often enough, comes to be regarded as truth. Climate alarmism is a perfect example.

I dunno. Lindzen's opening statement seems to be a very full-throated argument that supports the spirit of what the commenter my husband quoted meant to convey with his comment. Which is to say that it's NOT a fact that the climate CAN be DRIVEN by CO2 @< 0.04%. my husband, perhaps you don't realize it, but that commenter is merely restating the basic claim of CAGW alarmists in reverse. Lindzen spent 5 minutes and ~600 words saying effectively the same thing that this youtube commenter reduced to a single 19 word sentence.

Yeah, this is Lindzen being Lindzen. And Dog being Dog. Because nowhere in there does Lindzen refer to the percentage of CO2 a being a factor. Because he agrees with mainstream climate scientists that the radiative forcing alone from a doubling of CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere 1C. He can't agree to that without agreeing that increasing CO2 CAN drive climate change. He tries to play up uncertainties to minimize the change. But that's not denying that it CAN drive climate change. Once again, WD misrepresents what was said.

But Dog also has the entire issue backwards. The smaller the percentage of CO2, the greater the temperature increase will be from introducing a fixed amount of carbon. Should we double the percentage and then double it again (1600 ppm), the comment will be closer to the truth, as it will take a crapton more carbon to cause a change, and we'll likely have exhausted our carbon reserves anyway.