On Richard Lindzen, the Art of Strategic Doubt, and Why "Cautious Concern" Is the Grown-Up Posi

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > On Richard Lindzen, the Art of Strategic Doubt, and Why "Cautious Concern" Is the Grown-Up Posi

On Richard Lindzen, the Art of Strategic Doubt, and Why "Cautious Concern" Is the Grown-Up Position06-06-2026 13:28
Patricio ★☆☆☆☆ (103)	Let's talk about Richard Lindzen, because his name comes up in climate discussions the way a dentist's name comes up when someone doesn't want to go: as an authority invoked to avoid an uncomfortable but necessary reckoning. Lindzen is not a crank. That's the first thing you need to understand--and the first thing his most enthusiastic fans exploit. He is a retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He has done genuinely important work in atmospheric dynamics, including foundational research on the quasi-biennial oscillation, which is a real thing involving stratospheric wind patterns, not a band name. He is credentialed. He is intelligent. He publishes in peer-reviewed journals. And his core scientific claims about climate change have, one after another, failed to survive independent scrutiny. That distinction matters. Being credentialed is not the same as being right. And in Lindzen's case, the gap between those two things is the Grand Canyon. What Lindzen Actually Argues Lindzen does not deny that the planet is warming. He does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What he argues--and has argued for decades, with shifting supporting hypotheses--is that climate sensitivity is very low. That is, that the amount of warming you get from doubling atmospheric CO2 is far smaller than the scientific mainstream concludes. He argues the feedbacks that amplify warming--particularly involving water vapor and clouds--are weaker or even negative. The planet, in his telling, has a natural thermostat that prevents serious harm. Nothing to see here. Move along. This is a coherent scientific position. It is also one that the broader scientific community has examined rigorously and, each time, found lacking. His "Iris Effect" hypothesis--the idea that tropical clouds would thin in response to warming, allowing heat to escape and damping any temperature rise--was tested by multiple independent research teams and did not hold up to the observational data. His water vapor arguments were similarly examined and found to be inconsistent with satellite measurements. The Global Climate Coalition--an industry lobbying group, mind you, hardly a hotbed of alarmism--reviewed Lindzen's contrarian arguments and quietly set them aside because the supporting evidence was too weak to use. Let that settle for a moment. The fossil fuel industry's own scientists looked at Lindzen's work and said, in effect, we can't build on this. The "Cautious Concern" Is Not Alarmism--It's the Science Here's what I want to be direct about, because it has been my experience that on forums on the climate debate, and though I'm new here, perhaps including this one, they sometimes frame this as a binary between hysterical alarmists and cool-headed skeptics: the mainstream scientific position on climate change is, itself, the cautious and measured one. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not predict apocalypse on a fixed schedule. It publishes ranges of probability and magnitude. It uses phrases like "very likely" and "high confidence" with specific technical definitions. It presents uncertainty--honestly, explicitly--as a feature, not a bug. The scientific consensus is not a doomsday cult. It is a careful aggregation of evidence from atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, and paleoclimatologists across dozens of countries who have no particular institutional incentive to agree with each other. When those scientists say there is a "substantial risk" of warming considerably larger than 1°C this century--with attendant risks to sea level, agricultural systems, extreme weather frequency, and ocean chemistry--that is not hysteria. That is the application of probability to consequences. It is, frankly, the same reasoning we apply to earthquake engineering, actuarial tables, and hurricane preparedness. We do not wait for certainty before we reinforce a bridge. Lindzen's rhetorical move--and it is a move, whatever its scientific dressing--is to treat uncertainty as a reason for inaction rather than as a reason for prudence (and Dr. Judith Curry also holds this view, I believe). He is technically correct that climate models have uncertainties. He is also not entirely wrong that many individual actions people take to address climate change--the reusable straws, the carbon-offset airline tickets, the feel-good gestures--are largely inconsequential at scale. But watch what he does with those correct observations: from them, he makes an unjustified double leap--that we therefore "don't know if there is a problem," and that because some proposed solutions are inadequate, the search for better ones should be abandoned. If a building inspector tells you a structure's electrical wiring poses a severe fire hazard, the conclusion is not to ignore it because the inspector can't name the exact minute a spark will catch. The conclusion is to fix the wiring before the house burns down. That is not a scientific conclusion Lindzen is offering. That is a policy preference dressed in a lab coat. The Colleagues He Left Behind In 2017, Lindzen sent a petition to President Trump urging withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He described the 300 signatories as "eminent scientists and other qualified individuals." A review of the list by the Guardian found few actual climate, earth, or physical scientists among them. Twenty-two of his own MIT colleagues--people who worked in the same building, in the same field, who know his work as well as anyone on Earth--responded with an open letter. They addressed specific factual errors in Lindzen's claims. They noted the near-universal agreement among professional scientific societies--the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and 140 national academies of science--on the reality and seriousness of human-caused warming. "In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter," wrote Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences, "ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system." That is not a dismissal from ideological opponents. That is a verdict from peers. What to Do With All of This You can acknowledge--as I do--that Lindzen raises legitimate points about scientific culture, about the temptation to overstate certainty, and about the complexity of climate modeling. These are fair critiques in principle. The response to them is not to conclude that the science is therefore useless. The response is to engage with probability and risk honestly. A doctor who tells you that you have a 70% chance of a serious heart attack in the next decade if you don't change your habits is not being alarmist. She is doing her job. You can dispute her model. You can seek a second opinion. But if your response is to find one cardiologist in retirement who thinks the real number is more like 5%, and to treat his minority view as permission to order the bacon cheeseburger--well. That's a choice. It is not, however, a scientifically defensible one. Cautious concern is not alarmism. It is the rational response to substantial risk, communicated by the overwhelming weight of expert evidence, that has been stress-tested by independent scientists across decades and continents. Richard Lindzen is a smart man whose arguments about climate sensitivity have repeatedly failed to match observational evidence, and who continues to advance interpretations that remain out of step with the overwhelming majority of his field. He is also frequently cited by groups and commentators who prefer conclusions that minimize the need for policy change, which makes his contrarian stance especially attractive in certain political contexts. You are allowed to take him seriously. You are not required to take him at his word. References: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 2. https://eaps.mit.edu/people/faculty/richard-s-lindzen/ 3. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JAtS...25.1095L/abstract 4. https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis 6. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-7_GCC-Climate-Primer.pdf 7. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climate 8. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump/ 9. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf 10. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/ Edited on 06-06-2026 13:31
06-06-2026 18:26
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Patricio wrote: Let's talk about Richard Lindzen, because his name comes up in climate discussions the way a dentist's name comes up when someone doesn't want to go: as an authority invoked to avoid an uncomfortable but necessary reckoning. Lindzen is not a crank. That's the first thing you need to understand--and the first thing his most enthusiastic fans exploit. He is a retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He has done genuinely important work in atmospheric dynamics, including foundational research on the quasi-biennial oscillation, which is a real thing involving stratospheric wind patterns, not a band name. He is credentialed. He is intelligent. He publishes in peer-reviewed journals. And his core scientific claims about climate change have, one after another, failed to survive independent scrutiny. That distinction matters. Being credentialed is not the same as being right. And in Lindzen's case, the gap between those two things is the Grand Canyon. What Lindzen Actually Argues Lindzen does not deny that the planet is warming. He does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What he argues--and has argued for decades, with shifting supporting hypotheses--is that climate sensitivity is very low. That is, that the amount of warming you get from doubling atmospheric CO2 is far smaller than the scientific mainstream concludes. He argues the feedbacks that amplify warming--particularly involving water vapor and clouds--are weaker or even negative. The planet, in his telling, has a natural thermostat that prevents serious harm. Nothing to see here. Move along. This is a coherent scientific position. It is also one that the broader scientific community has examined rigorously and, each time, found lacking. His "Iris Effect" hypothesis--the idea that tropical clouds would thin in response to warming, allowing heat to escape and damping any temperature rise--was tested by multiple independent research teams and did not hold up to the observational data. His water vapor arguments were similarly examined and found to be inconsistent with satellite measurements. The Global Climate Coalition--an industry lobbying group, mind you, hardly a hotbed of alarmism--reviewed Lindzen's contrarian arguments and quietly set them aside because the supporting evidence was too weak to use. Let that settle for a moment. The fossil fuel industry's own scientists looked at Lindzen's work and said, in effect, we can't build on this. The "Cautious Concern" Is Not Alarmism--It's the Science Here's what I want to be direct about, because it has been my experience that on forums on the climate debate, and though I'm new here, perhaps including this one, they sometimes frame this as a binary between hysterical alarmists and cool-headed skeptics: the mainstream scientific position on climate change is, itself, the cautious and measured one. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not predict apocalypse on a fixed schedule. It publishes ranges of probability and magnitude. It uses phrases like "very likely" and "high confidence" with specific technical definitions. It presents uncertainty--honestly, explicitly--as a feature, not a bug. The scientific consensus is not a doomsday cult. It is a careful aggregation of evidence from atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, and paleoclimatologists across dozens of countries who have no particular institutional incentive to agree with each other. When those scientists say there is a "substantial risk" of warming considerably larger than 1°C this century--with attendant risks to sea level, agricultural systems, extreme weather frequency, and ocean chemistry--that is not hysteria. That is the application of probability to consequences. It is, frankly, the same reasoning we apply to earthquake engineering, actuarial tables, and hurricane preparedness. We do not wait for certainty before we reinforce a bridge. Lindzen's rhetorical move--and it is a move, whatever its scientific dressing--is to treat uncertainty as a reason for inaction rather than as a reason for prudence (and Dr. Judith Curry also holds this view, I believe). He is technically correct that climate models have uncertainties. He is also not entirely wrong that many individual actions people take to address climate change--the reusable straws, the carbon-offset airline tickets, the feel-good gestures--are largely inconsequential at scale. But watch what he does with those correct observations: from them, he makes an unjustified double leap--that we therefore "don't know if there is a problem," and that because some proposed solutions are inadequate, the search for better ones should be abandoned. If a building inspector tells you a structure's electrical wiring poses a severe fire hazard, the conclusion is not to ignore it because the inspector can't name the exact minute a spark will catch. The conclusion is to fix the wiring before the house burns down. That is not a scientific conclusion Lindzen is offering. That is a policy preference dressed in a lab coat. The Colleagues He Left Behind In 2017, Lindzen sent a petition to President Trump urging withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He described the 300 signatories as "eminent scientists and other qualified individuals." A review of the list by the Guardian found few actual climate, earth, or physical scientists among them. Twenty-two of his own MIT colleagues--people who worked in the same building, in the same field, who know his work as well as anyone on Earth--responded with an open letter. They addressed specific factual errors in Lindzen's claims. They noted the near-universal agreement among professional scientific societies--the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and 140 national academies of science--on the reality and seriousness of human-caused warming. "In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter," wrote Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences, "ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system." That is not a dismissal from ideological opponents. That is a verdict from peers. What to Do With All of This You can acknowledge--as I do--that Lindzen raises legitimate points about scientific culture, about the temptation to overstate certainty, and about the complexity of climate modeling. These are fair critiques in principle. The response to them is not to conclude that the science is therefore useless. The response is to engage with probability and risk honestly. A doctor who tells you that you have a 70% chance of a serious heart attack in the next decade if you don't change your habits is not being alarmist. She is doing her job. You can dispute her model. You can seek a second opinion. But if your response is to find one cardiologist in retirement who thinks the real number is more like 5%, and to treat his minority view as permission to order the bacon cheeseburger--well. That's a choice. It is not, however, a scientifically defensible one. Cautious concern is not alarmism. It is the rational response to substantial risk, communicated by the overwhelming weight of expert evidence, that has been stress-tested by independent scientists across decades and continents. Richard Lindzen is a smart man whose arguments about climate sensitivity have repeatedly failed to match observational evidence, and who continues to advance interpretations that remain out of step with the overwhelming majority of his field. He is also frequently cited by groups and commentators who prefer conclusions that minimize the need for policy change, which makes his contrarian stance especially attractive in certain political contexts. You are allowed to take him seriously. You are not required to take him at his word. References: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 2. https://eaps.mit.edu/people/faculty/richard-s-lindzen/ 3. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JAtS...25.1095L/abstract 4. https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis 6. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-7_GCC-Climate-Primer.pdf 7. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climate 8. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump/ 9. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf 10. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/ THIS is the kind of post that represents/stimulates legitimate "climate debate" I'll have to read it more than once, but my first thought is that Dr. Lindzen is only ONE scientist. The climate "skeptics" have multiple "champions" who are, or were at one time legitimate scientists. They also have a few "traitors", such as Dr. Richard Muller of UC Berkeley. When Dr. Muller finally analyzed a complete enough data set, he reached the inevitable conclusion that this shit is REAL. Suddenly, their champion became a despised traitor, accused of all kinds of corruption, etc., for "selling out" to the climate "alarmists". Ten references are offered here for anyone curious enough to do a reality check about the Lindzen story. The 2010 book "Merchants of Doubt", co-authored by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, provides a "big picture" view of how climate science is propagandized. The dynamics remind me of Donald Trump's "perfect phone call" to Ukraine's president, requesting the announcement of an "investigation" into the Bidens. It resulted in his first impeachment. It was supposed to result in an "investigation" that would go nowhere, but would produce the needed DOUBT about Biden for the upcoming 2020 election. "Merchants of Doubt" was enthusiastically endorsed by Naomi Klein. She has authored some excellent books of her own. Naomi Klein's 2014 book "This Changes Everything" is described as a "deep dive into the climate crisis" gets into some more controversial questions about the economics behind it. Dr. Lindzen is an independent operator, but his efforts are exploited by others who are more concerned about protecting economic interests than in the advancement of scientific knowledge. Some of the "Lindzen effect" can be seen right here on this website. It's all about that "climate sensitivity" and how it takes more CO2 than they say to bring about enough warming to be of concern. I can't get inside the man's head to know what he thinks, but I suspect that Dr. Lindzen is quite sincere in his beliefs. Dr. Judith Currey, on the other hand, is someone who I suspect is well aware of the exploitation of her findings for political purposes, and is happy to go along with it, adjusting her position as needed. If the "debate" comes down to discrediting or canonizing just one individual scientist, you might not be able to see the forest for the trees. "My scientist is better than your scientist" may be a legitimate point. But with so many scientists out there.. Even if it is 97 to 3, three out of a hundred can create a long list of names that looks impressive. I agree that Lindzen's erroneous conclusions have gotten so much attention that it makes sense to focus on the name of one particular scientist. But that kind of makes him an exception to the rule. In most cases the research, and not the researcher, are what should get attention. Look what happened to poor Dr. Muller as a consequence of being championed by name, only to be later vilified by name. I suspect a lot less "hate mail" gets sent to anonymous scientists whose names are hard to find because they were part of a large team whose combined effort gets published. Here is the Lindzen library, with ten references available to disabuse anyone of misconceptions about what this Lindzen guy did or did not "prove" in science. References are superior to paraphrasing what someone thinks someone said.
06-06-2026 19:10
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
06-06-2026 20:37
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
06-06-2026 20:56
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	PATRICIO! I don't want to "block" your view of this important question below. Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer the "question" because my feeble mind cannot grasp the sense of it. Especially where it says "So, according to you, it should be.." THAT was a huge leap I cannot make sense of. I hate to behave as a typical troll here, but definition of terms might be helpful. I can't even figure out what you are asking, as there are multiple ways to interpret the vague statements. The huge leap between "If" and "then" is unexplained. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? additional edit added as afterthought: Patricio might understand your "science" better if you completed the picture for him with "Heaven's Glass" enclosing the atmosphere in a sealed container. Then he will understand that it is the WEIGHT of the gas molecules applying pressure to that glass cieling, how that glass can crack under pressure, and how THIS is what explains everything related to climate change. Edited on 06-06-2026 21:18

06-06-2026 21:17
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Im a BM wrote: PATRICIO! I don't want to "block" your view of this important question below. Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer the "question" because my feeble mind cannot grasp the sense of it. Especially where it says "So, according to you, it should be.." THAT was a huge leap I cannot make sense of. I hate to behave as a typical troll here, but definition of terms might be helpful. I can't even figure out what you are asking, as there are multiple ways to interpret the vague statements. The huge leap between "If" and "then" is unexplained. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? I thought you two would be aware that water is a so called "greenhouse gas." And you two are pushing the theory that "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming... some gibberish about long wave and short wave radiation...bla bla bla... So for the theory to stand, it must be demonstrated in all cases, yes? Phoenix and Jackson get the same amount solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to your theory asserting "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming, Jackson should be hotter than Phoenix. So why is Phoenix hotter than Jackson? https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
06-06-2026 21:22
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Spongy Iris wrote: Im a BM wrote: PATRICIO! I don't want to "block" your view of this important question below. Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer the "question" because my feeble mind cannot grasp the sense of it. Especially where it says "So, according to you, it should be.." THAT was a huge leap I cannot make sense of. I hate to behave as a typical troll here, but definition of terms might be helpful. I can't even figure out what you are asking, as there are multiple ways to interpret the vague statements. The huge leap between "If" and "then" is unexplained. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? I thought you two would be aware that water is a so called "greenhouse gas." And you two are pushing the theory that "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming... some gibberish about long wave and short wave radiation...bla bla bla... So for the theory to stand, it must be demonstrated in all cases, yes? Phoenix and Jackson get the same amount solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to your theory asserting "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming, Jackson should be hotter than Phoenix. So why is Phoenix hotter than Jackson? Not to be too nitpicky, but is ANYONE "asserting 'greenhouse gases' are the sole cause of global warming"? Doesn't solar energy have something to do with it? additional edit required: Over geologic time, it is the sun's increasing luminosity that is the "sole cause of global warming". There was a time when the sun was so dim, the ice that would become the oceans could not melt other than microsites of geologic heat escape. There were a few warm places with liquid water where a bacteria could grow, underground, safe from the ultraviolet light frying the surface. Terminal electron acceptors such as oxygen were negligible in abundance. There was fierce competition for the nitrates, sulfates, etc. exuded from the Earth, to use as oxidant for the hydrogen, H2, that the Earth spewed generously. But there was no shortage of carbon dioxide, perhaps the weakest terminal acceptor other than water that was available in sufficient supply to use. So, the ancestors of those bovine belch bacteria found a way to use carbon dioxide as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen, and voila!, you get METHANE. Methane is at least 20x more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. By putting out enough methane for enough centuries, methanogenic bacteria provided the Earth with a blanket to keep it a little warmer in the dim sun. This allowed water to melt, at least along the equator, to form tropical seas where photosynthesis could evolve. But the sun just keeps getting brighter and brighter as she gets older. Given time, she will be so bright she cooks the planet even when there is no longer a single molecule of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So, over geologic time it is the sun's increasing luminosity that is the "sole cause of global warming". Edited on 06-06-2026 21:37
06-06-2026 21:27
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Im a BM wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Im a BM wrote: PATRICIO! I don't want to "block" your view of this important question below. Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer the "question" because my feeble mind cannot grasp the sense of it. Especially where it says "So, according to you, it should be.." THAT was a huge leap I cannot make sense of. I hate to behave as a typical troll here, but definition of terms might be helpful. I can't even figure out what you are asking, as there are multiple ways to interpret the vague statements. The huge leap between "If" and "then" is unexplained. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? I thought you two would be aware that water is a so called "greenhouse gas." And you two are pushing the theory that "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming... some gibberish about long wave and short wave radiation...bla bla bla... So for the theory to stand, it must be demonstrated in all cases, yes? Phoenix and Jackson get the same amount solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to your theory asserting "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming, Jackson should be hotter than Phoenix. So why is Phoenix hotter than Jackson? Not to be too nitpicky, but is ANYONE "asserting 'greenhouse gases' are the sole cause of global warming"? Doesn't solar energy have something to do with it? Solar energy is very constant. So when I say global warming, I mean there is an increase in global temperature over time. So because solar energy is so constant, it doesn't cause a change in global climate. https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
06-06-2026 21:40
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Spongy Iris wrote: Im a BM wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Im a BM wrote: PATRICIO! I don't want to "block" your view of this important question below. Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer the "question" because my feeble mind cannot grasp the sense of it. Especially where it says "So, according to you, it should be.." THAT was a huge leap I cannot make sense of. I hate to behave as a typical troll here, but definition of terms might be helpful. I can't even figure out what you are asking, as there are multiple ways to interpret the vague statements. The huge leap between "If" and "then" is unexplained. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? I thought you two would be aware that water is a so called "greenhouse gas." And you two are pushing the theory that "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming... some gibberish about long wave and short wave radiation...bla bla bla... So for the theory to stand, it must be demonstrated in all cases, yes? Phoenix and Jackson get the same amount solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to your theory asserting "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming, Jackson should be hotter than Phoenix. So why is Phoenix hotter than Jackson? Not to be too nitpicky, but is ANYONE "asserting 'greenhouse gases' are the sole cause of global warming"? Doesn't solar energy have something to do with it? Solar energy is very constant. So when I say global warming, I mean there is an increase in global temperature over time. So because solar energy is so constant, it doesn't cause a change in global climate. "Solar energy is very constant."? Solar energy is very constantly INCREASING over geologic time as the sun becomes more and more luminous. It looks like you responded to my previous post before seeing the additional edit about this very point. I assert that over geologic time, the SOLE cause of global warming is the increasing luminosity of the sun. Edited on 06-06-2026 21:42
06-06-2026 21:42
Patricio ★☆☆☆☆ (103)	Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Spongy, The greenhouse effect doesn't determine which city feels hotter on a summer afternoon--and conflating those two things is where you've gone wrong. Phoenix is hotter than Jackson because of aridity, not because the greenhouse effect failed. Dry desert air and baked soil have almost no moisture available for evaporation, so nearly all incoming solar energy converts directly into heat. Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Atmospheric physicists call this the Bowen ratio--the partition between sensible heat and latent heat. Phoenix's is sky-high. Jackson's is not. The greenhouse effect operates on outgoing longwave radiation at a planetary scale over decades. It was never a claim that humid cities will be hotter than dry ones on any given afternoon. You've mixed up two completely different physical processes and called it a refutation. It isn't. Now, if you doubt any of the above, just fact check it on google, yahoo, duck duck go, gemini, whatever. Edited on 06-06-2026 21:48
06-06-2026 22:00
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Patricio wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Spongy, The greenhouse effect doesn't determine which city feels hotter on a summer afternoon--and conflating those two things is where you've gone wrong. Phoenix is hotter than Jackson because of aridity, not because the greenhouse effect failed. Dry desert air and baked soil have almost no moisture available for evaporation, so nearly all incoming solar energy converts directly into heat. Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Atmospheric physicists call this the Bowen ratio--the partition between sensible heat and latent heat. Phoenix's is sky-high. Jackson's is not. The greenhouse effect operates on outgoing longwave radiation at a planetary scale over decades. It was never a claim that humid cities will be hotter than dry ones on any given afternoon. You've mixed up two completely different physical processes and called it a refutation. It isn't. Now, if you doubt any of the above, just fact check it on google, yahoo, duck duck go, gemini, whatever. So if Phoenix gets cloudy weather on summer day, it should become hotter, then, because of the greenhouse gas effect, right? https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html Edited on 06-06-2026 22:00
06-06-2026 22:02
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Im a BM wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Im a BM wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Im a BM wrote: PATRICIO! I don't want to "block" your view of this important question below. Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer the "question" because my feeble mind cannot grasp the sense of it. Especially where it says "So, according to you, it should be.." THAT was a huge leap I cannot make sense of. I hate to behave as a typical troll here, but definition of terms might be helpful. I can't even figure out what you are asking, as there are multiple ways to interpret the vague statements. The huge leap between "If" and "then" is unexplained. Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Who wants to bet Patricio ignores the question? I thought you two would be aware that water is a so called "greenhouse gas." And you two are pushing the theory that "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming... some gibberish about long wave and short wave radiation...bla bla bla... So for the theory to stand, it must be demonstrated in all cases, yes? Phoenix and Jackson get the same amount solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to your theory asserting "greenhouse gases" are the sole cause of global warming, Jackson should be hotter than Phoenix. So why is Phoenix hotter than Jackson? Not to be too nitpicky, but is ANYONE "asserting 'greenhouse gases' are the sole cause of global warming"? Doesn't solar energy have something to do with it? Solar energy is very constant. So when I say global warming, I mean there is an increase in global temperature over time. So because solar energy is so constant, it doesn't cause a change in global climate. "Solar energy is very constant."? Solar energy is very constantly INCREASING over geologic time as the sun becomes more and more luminous. It looks like you responded to my previous post before seeing the additional edit about this very point. I assert that over geologic time, the SOLE cause of global warming is the increasing luminosity of the sun. I'm just talking about the last few decades, 1 century max, when we have observed global warming (or climate change) particularly in the North Polar region. https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
06-06-2026 22:10
Patricio ★☆☆☆☆ (103)	Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Spongy, The greenhouse effect doesn't determine which city feels hotter on a summer afternoon--and conflating those two things is where you've gone wrong. Phoenix is hotter than Jackson because of aridity, not because the greenhouse effect failed. Dry desert air and baked soil have almost no moisture available for evaporation, so nearly all incoming solar energy converts directly into heat. Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Atmospheric physicists call this the Bowen ratio--the partition between sensible heat and latent heat. Phoenix's is sky-high. Jackson's is not. The greenhouse effect operates on outgoing longwave radiation at a planetary scale over decades. It was never a claim that humid cities will be hotter than dry ones on any given afternoon. You've mixed up two completely different physical processes and called it a refutation. It isn't. Now, if you doubt any of the above, just fact check it on google, yahoo, duck duck go, gemini, whatever. So if Phoenix gets cloudy weather on summer day, it should become hotter, then, because of the greenhouse gas effect, right? No, and the fact that you think it should reveals the confusion at the heart of your argument. Clouds are not simply "more greenhouse effect." They do two opposing things simultaneously: they absorb and re-emit outgoing longwave radiation--that's the greenhouse-like warming effect you're gesturing at--but they also reflect incoming shortwave solar radiation back to space before it ever reaches the surface. On a summer day in Phoenix, that second effect dominates overwhelmingly. Cloud cover on a Phoenix summer afternoon means less solar energy reaches the ground, and temperatures drop. Ask anyone who lives there. The net effect of clouds on surface temperature depends on cloud type, altitude, thickness, and time of day. High thin cirrus clouds do trap outgoing heat with relatively little reflective effect--modest net warming. Low thick cumulus clouds on a summer afternoon are net coolers. This is actually one of the central debates in climate sensitivity research--it's precisely what Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis was about. He argued that tropical clouds would act as a negative feedback, reducing warming. Most evidence has gone against him, but it's a real and serious scientific question. What clouds are not is a simple dial that proves or disproves the greenhouse effect based on whether Phoenix gets hotter on an overcast Tuesday
06-06-2026 22:12
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Patricio wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Spongy, The greenhouse effect doesn't determine which city feels hotter on a summer afternoon--and conflating those two things is where you've gone wrong. Phoenix is hotter than Jackson because of aridity, not because the greenhouse effect failed. Dry desert air and baked soil have almost no moisture available for evaporation, so nearly all incoming solar energy converts directly into heat. Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Atmospheric physicists call this the Bowen ratio--the partition between sensible heat and latent heat. Phoenix's is sky-high. Jackson's is not. The greenhouse effect operates on outgoing longwave radiation at a planetary scale over decades. It was never a claim that humid cities will be hotter than dry ones on any given afternoon. You've mixed up two completely different physical processes and called it a refutation. It isn't. Now, if you doubt any of the above, just fact check it on google, yahoo, duck duck go, gemini, whatever. I'm dissapointed that Spongy isn't willing to share the glass ceiling hypothesis right up front. The glass enclosure thesis is truly fascinating. MY newest hypothesis is the "somebody-is-forwarding-links" model. More than six hundred views in the first two days was more than 100x the number of posters participating. Perhaps because the New Messiah cluttered up the home page, it suddenly tapered off. Last 4th of July, several biogeochemistry-related threads that weren't even visible on the home page picked up hundreds of views per day. The record was just over 500 views in one day for one of them. A new viewer couldn't see them on the home page, and would have had to take the extra step of clicking "View older threads" to see them. My theory is that somebody out there forwarded the links to someone else who didn't even have to open the website and jump through the hoops to find the thread or post of interest for sharing. I think someone out there forwarded links to your thread in the first day or two, and hundreds of others opened them up. Still testing the hypothesis as I will keep track of the "views" count. Potentially, the discussion could take an interesting turn and there will be a sudden surge of new "views" as someone forwards the links to others. I can only guess who they are, and I used to be suspicious that they weren't even real. This website manipulates the numbers to pretend that there are hundreds of "Guests online", quite suddenly and only very briefly. That may be part of why Google kept directing new members to a dead website. Multiple lines of inquiry resulted in my conclusion that each "view" really does represent a real person opening up a particular thread on this website.
06-06-2026 22:16
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Im a BM wrote: Patricio wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: Lindzen does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here is the question again. If the greenhouse GAS effect is real, why is Phoenix, AZ so much hotter than Jackson, MS? There is way more water in the atmosphere in Jackson than Phoenix. They get the same amount of solar radiation. Neither is near the sea. And Jackson is even at a lower altitude. So according to you, it should be hotter in Jackson than Phoenix. Why doesn't the greenhouse GAS effect work in these 2 geographies? Spongy, The greenhouse effect doesn't determine which city feels hotter on a summer afternoon--and conflating those two things is where you've gone wrong. Phoenix is hotter than Jackson because of aridity, not because the greenhouse effect failed. Dry desert air and baked soil have almost no moisture available for evaporation, so nearly all incoming solar energy converts directly into heat. Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Atmospheric physicists call this the Bowen ratio--the partition between sensible heat and latent heat. Phoenix's is sky-high. Jackson's is not. The greenhouse effect operates on outgoing longwave radiation at a planetary scale over decades. It was never a claim that humid cities will be hotter than dry ones on any given afternoon. You've mixed up two completely different physical processes and called it a refutation. It isn't. Now, if you doubt any of the above, just fact check it on google, yahoo, duck duck go, gemini, whatever. I'm dissapointed that Spongy isn't willing to share the glass ceiling hypothesis right up front. The glass enclosure thesis is truly fascinating. MY newest hypothesis is the "somebody-is-forwarding-links" model. More than six hundred views in the first two days was more than 100x the number of posters participating. Perhaps because the New Messiah cluttered up the home page, it suddenly tapered off. Last 4th of July, several biogeochemistry-related threads that weren't even visible on the home page picked up hundreds of views per day. The record was just over 500 views in one day for one of them. A new viewer couldn't see them on the home page, and would have had to take the extra step of clicking "View older threads" to see them. My theory is that somebody out there forwarded the links to someone else who didn't even have to open the website and jump through the hoops to find the thread or post of interest for sharing. I think someone out there forwarded links to your thread in the first day or two, and hundreds of others opened them up. Still testing the hypothesis as I will keep track of the "views" count. Potentially, the discussion could take an interesting turn and there will be a sudden surge of new "views" as someone forwards the links to others. I can only guess who they are, and I used to be suspicious that they weren't even real. This website manipulates the numbers to pretend that there are hundreds of "Guests online", quite suddenly and only very briefly. That may be part of why Google kept directing new members to a dead website. Multiple lines of inquiry resulted in my conclusion that each "view" really does represent a real person opening up a particular thread on this website. Well clearly Patricio is going to keep coming up with bullshit reasons that gases can create a "greenhouse." But they cannot. The Earth quite literally is enclosed in a "greenhouse" called Heaven. Actually evidence points to it being yellow. But occasionally we do see a green sunset. https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html

06-06-2026 23:10
Patricio ★☆☆☆☆ (103)	Spongy Iris wrote: Well clearly Patricio is going to keep coming up with bullshit reasons that gases can create a "greenhouse." But they cannot. The Earth quite literally is enclosed in a "greenhouse" called Heaven. Actually evidence points to it being yellow. But occasionally we do see a green sunset. You know the old saying, whatever floats your boat.
07-06-2026 05:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Patricio wrote: The greenhouse effect doesn't determine which city feels hotter on a summer afternoon Too funny! All Patricio can do is flail away at what the greenhouse effect supposedly is not. There is no greenhouse effect that has the magical superpower to spontaneously increase earth's average global equilibrium temperature. If Patricio ever implies that Global Warming / Climate Change / greenhouse effect ever does 'X', then it will only be a matter of time before Patricio announces "No one is claiming that Global Warming / Climate Change / greenhouse effect does 'X'". It's all a scam, perpetrated by scientifically illiterate Marxist morons on gullible, scientifically illiterate morons who are desperate to appear important. Patricio wrote: Phoenix is hotter than Jackson because of aridity, not because the greenhouse effect failed. You just implied that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. Ergo, if you ever claim that water is somehow a powerful greenhouse gas, I'm going to chop you off at the knees. This is going to be a lot of fun. Patricio wrote: Dry desert air and baked soil have almost no moisture available for evaporation, So? Keep going. You are about to demonstrate that you have absolutely no grasp of thermodynamics. Keep giving me ammunition. Patricio wrote: so nearly all incoming solar energy converts directly into heat. You just forfetied. You don't know what "heat" is. You are a grown adult and you don't know what heat is. How embarrassing! Oh, and don't try claiming that you understand thermodynamics any better than Robert (who doesn't have the first clue either). I think you're done. Patricio wrote: Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Did you just invent a sci-fi term in a desperate attempt to get out of the hole in which you dug for yourself, in the corner into which you backed yourself? Too funny! Patricio wrote: Atmospheric physicists call this the Bowen ratio-- Nope ... and of course, you wouldn't know. Patricio wrote: The greenhouse effect operates on outgoing longwave radiation at a planetary scale over decades. Nope. There is no greenhouse effect model that says anything. You just pulled all of the preceding out of your azz.
07-06-2026 06:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Im a BM wrote:I'm dissapointed that Spongy isn't willing to share the glass ceiling hypothesis right up front. Spongy Iris has shared his theory up front and in-depth. Aren't you able to look up the conversations? Im a BM wrote: The glass enclosure thesis is truly fascinating. Yes. Those conversations were very interesting.
07-06-2026 06:25
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Patricio wrote: The confusion at the heart of the argument: Clouds are not simply "more greenhouse effect." They do two opposing things simultaneously: they absorb and re-emit outgoing longwave radiation--that's the greenhouse-like warming effect you're gesturing at--but they also reflect incoming shortwave solar radiation back to space before it ever reaches the surface. Clouds warm and cool simultaneously is what you're saying. Indeed that is confusing : / Ok let's move on, and compare 2 different cities. Same idea, but this time, the 2 cities get way less Sun power. Ottawa, ON and Fargo, ND. In this example, we see Ottawa is hotter than Fargo. And it rains more in Ottawa. Is Ottawa hotter than Fargo because of the greenhouse gas effect? https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
07-06-2026 06:36
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:I'm dissapointed that Spongy isn't willing to share the glass ceiling hypothesis right up front. Spongy Iris has shared his theory up front and in-depth. Aren't you able to look up the conversations? Im a BM wrote: The glass enclosure thesis is truly fascinating. Yes. Those conversations were very interesting. It's all leading back to my favorite quote. Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cloud. https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html
07-06-2026 07:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Spongy Iris wrote: It's all leading back to my favorite quote. Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cloud. It's one of my favorites. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-06-2026 10:49
Patricio ★☆☆☆☆ (103)	IBdaMann wrote: [...see original post for truncated part...] Patricio wrote: Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Did you just invent a sci-fi term in a desperate attempt to get out of the hole in which you dug for yourself, in the corner into which you backed yourself? Too funny! [...see original post...] You have the most egregious habit of engaging in posturing/puffery. I don't know if you ever took a debate class in college, but you'd get bad marks for doing it, and I'm talking in the freshman year. Not to mention the incontrovertible fact that you prove, over and over, that you simply do not know what you are talking about. For your edification, thus proof of your ignorance: "evapotranspiration" Sorry, not sci fi: https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/evapotranspiration-and-water-cycle Now, there's an old saying, which goes 'never use a 90 cent word when a 10 cent word will do. Thing is, the only 10 cent replacement for that one requires what, about 5 words? Why use 5 words when one word does the job, particularly when the audience (you, in this case) is supposed to know something about the subject, or that's what you claim. Clearly, that is not the case. Edited on 07-06-2026 10:53
07-06-2026 13:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Patricio wrote: You have the most egregious habit of engaging in posturing/puffery. Too funny! Mockery is not posturing. Patricio wrote:I don't know if you ever took a debate class in college, but you'd get bad marks for doing it, I'm guessing you never engaged in a debate. Mockery well done is more effective than simply pointing out errors. Patricio wrote: Not to mention the incontrovertible fact that you prove, over and over, that you simply do not know what you are talking about. I have science on my side, and you have your religious beliefs on yours. You don't even know what science is. This is why you will never do well on this topic. The moment you think you are disagreeing with me, you are simply disagreeing with science, and you aren't going to win that one. Imagine, going up against science because your religion commandeth ... and you do it. Like I tell you in every post, you should learn what science is. Patricio wrote: Now, there's an old saying, which goes 'never use a 90 cent word when a 10 cent word will do. My rule is that one should never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. Patricio wrote: Why use 5 words when one word does the job, particularly when the audience [is expected to to be bullied into not asking you for your definitions]. The point is that your diversion was merely intended to escape the problem you created for yourself, and now you are desperate to blame me for your scientific illiteracy. Dial it back. Define greenhouse gas in such a way that it causes earth's average global temperature to increase. Let's talk science.
07-06-2026 18:25
Patricio ★☆☆☆☆ (103)	IBdaMann wrote: Patricio wrote: Now, there's an old saying, which goes 'never use a 90 cent word when a 10 cent word will do. My rule is that one should never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. Patricio wrote: Didn't I just explain to you that the one I used has no diminutive? [quote]Patricio wrote: Why use 5 words when one word does the job, particularly when the audience [is expected to to be bullied into not asking you for your definitions]. The point is that your diversion was merely intended to escape the problem you created for yourself, and now you are desperate to blame me for your scientific illiteracy. Dial it back. Define greenhouse gas in such a way that it causes earth's average global temperature to increase. Let's talk science. Vacuous drivel, you are dismissed. Science? Why bother, when you make such mindbogglingly buffoonish comments, what serious person in science would want to talk to you? Edited on 07-06-2026 18:43
07-06-2026 22:02
Spongy Iris★★★★★ (3538)	Spongy Iris wrote: Patricio wrote: The confusion at the heart of the argument: Clouds are not simply "more greenhouse effect." They do two opposing things simultaneously: they absorb and re-emit outgoing longwave radiation--that's the greenhouse-like warming effect you're gesturing at--but they also reflect incoming shortwave solar radiation back to space before it ever reaches the surface. Clouds warm and cool simultaneously is what you're saying. Indeed that is confusing : / Seems I embarrassingly underestimated the convoluted mirror greenhouse gas effect. I had missed that point in the manual. It's unfalsifiable. Stupid me. Go figure, past few weeks I accidentally sliced my knuckle on the bottom of the bathroom cupboard vanity mirror, and also bumped my head on the top of its corner while unclogging the sink pipes on a separate occasion. The welt on my head still hasn't fully healed. You know what they say about Karma. I'm not a very handy guy. I barely managed to put the sink back pipes back together after that frustrating ordeal in beginner's plumbing for dummies. But at least the pipes aren't clogged anymore. Woo hoo. https://uccastandoff12424.blogspot.com/2024/01/this-blog-post-is-about-relationship.html Edited on 07-06-2026 22:15
08-06-2026 03:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Spongy Iris wrote: You know what they say about Karma. Yep: My karma just ran over your dogma. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2026 03:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	IBdaMann wrote:Dial it back. Define greenhouse gas in such a way that it causes earth's average global temperature to increase. Let's talk science. Patricio wrote:Vacuous drivel, you are dismissed. Science? Why bother, when you make such mindbogglingly buffoonish comments, what serious person in science would want to talk to you? Too funny. Dismissed. Next! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2026 06:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Patricio wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [...see original post for truncated part...] Patricio wrote: Jackson's abundant atmospheric moisture means a large share of that same solar energy gets consumed by evapotranspiration instead of warming the air. Did you just invent a sci-fi term in a desperate attempt to get out of the hole in which you dug for yourself, in the corner into which you backed yourself? Too funny! [...see original post...] You have the most egregious habit of engaging in posturing/puffery. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. Patricio wrote: I don't know if you ever took a debate class in college, but you'd get bad marks for doing it, and I'm talking in the freshman year. There are no debates here. Just conversations. Mantra 1c. Lame. Patricio wrote: Not to mention the incontrovertible fact that you prove, over and over, that you simply do not know what you are talking about. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else. I have given you the theories of science you simply choose to ignore. I have pointed out the mathematics you simply choose to ignore. Patricio wrote: For your edification, thus proof of your ignorance: "evapotranspiration" Sorry, not sci fi: It's not even a word. Buzzword fallacy. Patricio wrote: https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/evapotranspiration-and-water-cycle Science is not a government agency. So this is where you got your meaningless buzzword? You don't even have the wits to do anything but cut and paste. Patricio wrote: Now, there's an old saying, which goes 'never use a 90 cent word when a 10 cent word will do. Buzzwords aren't worth anything. Patricio wrote: Thing is, the only 10 cent replacement for that one requires what, about 5 words? Why use 5 words when one word does the job, particularly when the audience (you, in this case) is supposed to know something about the subject, or that's what you claim. Clearly, that is not the case. A buzzword is not a subject. Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-06-2026 06:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Patricio wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Patricio wrote: Now, there's an old saying, which goes 'never use a 90 cent word when a 10 cent word will do. My rule is that one should never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. Patricio wrote: Didn't I just explain to you that the one I used has no diminutive? [quote]Patricio wrote: Why use 5 words when one word does the job, particularly when the audience [is expected to to be bullied into not asking you for your definitions]. The point is that your diversion was merely intended to escape the problem you created for yourself, and now you are desperate to blame me for your scientific illiteracy. Dial it back. Define greenhouse gas in such a way that it causes earth's average global temperature to increase. Let's talk science. Vacuous drivel, you are dismissed. You just called your religion 'vacuous drivel'! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Patricio wrote: Science? Yeah. You know those theories of science you choose to ignore? Like the 1st law of thermodynamics? The 2nd law of thermodynamics? The Stefan-Boltzmann law? Patricio wrote: Why bother, when you make such mindbogglingly buffoonish comments, what serious person in science would want to talk to you? Now you claim to speak for everybody! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Omniscience fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2026 09:58
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Patricio wrote: Let's talk about Richard Lindzen, because his name comes up in climate discussions the way a dentist's name comes up when someone doesn't want to go: as an authority invoked to avoid an uncomfortable but necessary reckoning. Lindzen is not a crank. That's the first thing you need to understand--and the first thing his most enthusiastic fans exploit. He is a retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He has done genuinely important work in atmospheric dynamics, including foundational research on the quasi-biennial oscillation, which is a real thing involving stratospheric wind patterns, not a band name. He is credentialed. He is intelligent. He publishes in peer-reviewed journals. And his core scientific claims about climate change have, one after another, failed to survive independent scrutiny. That distinction matters. Being credentialed is not the same as being right. And in Lindzen's case, the gap between those two things is the Grand Canyon. What Lindzen Actually Argues Lindzen does not deny that the planet is warming. He does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What he argues--and has argued for decades, with shifting supporting hypotheses--is that climate sensitivity is very low. That is, that the amount of warming you get from doubling atmospheric CO2 is far smaller than the scientific mainstream concludes. He argues the feedbacks that amplify warming--particularly involving water vapor and clouds--are weaker or even negative. The planet, in his telling, has a natural thermostat that prevents serious harm. Nothing to see here. Move along. This is a coherent scientific position. It is also one that the broader scientific community has examined rigorously and, each time, found lacking. His "Iris Effect" hypothesis--the idea that tropical clouds would thin in response to warming, allowing heat to escape and damping any temperature rise--was tested by multiple independent research teams and did not hold up to the observational data. His water vapor arguments were similarly examined and found to be inconsistent with satellite measurements. The Global Climate Coalition--an industry lobbying group, mind you, hardly a hotbed of alarmism--reviewed Lindzen's contrarian arguments and quietly set them aside because the supporting evidence was too weak to use. Let that settle for a moment. The fossil fuel industry's own scientists looked at Lindzen's work and said, in effect, we can't build on this. The "Cautious Concern" Is Not Alarmism--It's the Science Here's what I want to be direct about, because it has been my experience that on forums on the climate debate, and though I'm new here, perhaps including this one, they sometimes frame this as a binary between hysterical alarmists and cool-headed skeptics: the mainstream scientific position on climate change is, itself, the cautious and measured one. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not predict apocalypse on a fixed schedule. It publishes ranges of probability and magnitude. It uses phrases like "very likely" and "high confidence" with specific technical definitions. It presents uncertainty--honestly, explicitly--as a feature, not a bug. The scientific consensus is not a doomsday cult. It is a careful aggregation of evidence from atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, and paleoclimatologists across dozens of countries who have no particular institutional incentive to agree with each other. When those scientists say there is a "substantial risk" of warming considerably larger than 1°C this century--with attendant risks to sea level, agricultural systems, extreme weather frequency, and ocean chemistry--that is not hysteria. That is the application of probability to consequences. It is, frankly, the same reasoning we apply to earthquake engineering, actuarial tables, and hurricane preparedness. We do not wait for certainty before we reinforce a bridge. Lindzen's rhetorical move--and it is a move, whatever its scientific dressing--is to treat uncertainty as a reason for inaction rather than as a reason for prudence (and Dr. Judith Curry also holds this view, I believe). He is technically correct that climate models have uncertainties. He is also not entirely wrong that many individual actions people take to address climate change--the reusable straws, the carbon-offset airline tickets, the feel-good gestures--are largely inconsequential at scale. But watch what he does with those correct observations: from them, he makes an unjustified double leap--that we therefore "don't know if there is a problem," and that because some proposed solutions are inadequate, the search for better ones should be abandoned. If a building inspector tells you a structure's electrical wiring poses a severe fire hazard, the conclusion is not to ignore it because the inspector can't name the exact minute a spark will catch. The conclusion is to fix the wiring before the house burns down. That is not a scientific conclusion Lindzen is offering. That is a policy preference dressed in a lab coat. The Colleagues He Left Behind In 2017, Lindzen sent a petition to President Trump urging withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He described the 300 signatories as "eminent scientists and other qualified individuals." A review of the list by the Guardian found few actual climate, earth, or physical scientists among them. Twenty-two of his own MIT colleagues--people who worked in the same building, in the same field, who know his work as well as anyone on Earth--responded with an open letter. They addressed specific factual errors in Lindzen's claims. They noted the near-universal agreement among professional scientific societies--the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and 140 national academies of science--on the reality and seriousness of human-caused warming. "In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter," wrote Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences, "ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system." That is not a dismissal from ideological opponents. That is a verdict from peers. What to Do With All of This You can acknowledge--as I do--that Lindzen raises legitimate points about scientific culture, about the temptation to overstate certainty, and about the complexity of climate modeling. These are fair critiques in principle. The response to them is not to conclude that the science is therefore useless. The response is to engage with probability and risk honestly. A doctor who tells you that you have a 70% chance of a serious heart attack in the next decade if you don't change your habits is not being alarmist. She is doing her job. You can dispute her model. You can seek a second opinion. But if your response is to find one cardiologist in retirement who thinks the real number is more like 5%, and to treat his minority view as permission to order the bacon cheeseburger--well. That's a choice. It is not, however, a scientifically defensible one. Cautious concern is not alarmism. It is the rational response to substantial risk, communicated by the overwhelming weight of expert evidence, that has been stress-tested by independent scientists across decades and continents. Richard Lindzen is a smart man whose arguments about climate sensitivity have repeatedly failed to match observational evidence, and who continues to advance interpretations that remain out of step with the overwhelming majority of his field. He is also frequently cited by groups and commentators who prefer conclusions that minimize the need for policy change, which makes his contrarian stance especially attractive in certain political contexts. You are allowed to take him seriously. You are not required to take him at his word. References: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 2. https://eaps.mit.edu/people/faculty/richard-s-lindzen/ 3. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JAtS...25.1095L/abstract 4. https://skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis 6. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-7_GCC-Climate-Primer.pdf 7. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climate 8. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump/ 9. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf 10. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/ A couple of famous-name climate scientists have a very public dispute, with one of the two being considerably more belligerant about it than the other. Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann have strongly differing opinion on whether or not relatively extreme measures along the lines of geoengineering will be necessary if we hope to ever get back to 20th century type climate. The global weirding of the first quarter of the 21st century would be unsustainable for agriculture and infrastructure even if this 2026 is as bad as it gets. Dr. Hansen says there is no way to address the problem by obsessing on reduction of emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion. Dr. Mann says Dr. Hansen is being a very bad boy scaring everybody, and that we just have to tighten our belts enough with the reduced fossil fuel associated emission emissions approach. I happen to agree with Dr. Hansen. It's a five alarm fire, and too many scientists are complacent that it's only a two or three alarm fire. Here at climate-debate.com they'd probably say that there is no fire at all. Or that there is no such thing as fire. Or that everyone knows the ONLY way to fight fire is with fire. Why first responders at the fire department are equipped with flame throwers.

09-06-2026 10:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	sealover wrote: ...deleted spam and numerous Holy Links... A couple of famous-name climate scientists have a very public dispute, with one of the two being considerably more belligerant about it than the other. Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann have strongly differing opinion on whether or not relatively extreme measures along the lines of geoengineering will be necessary if we hope to ever get back to 20th century type climate. The global weirding of the first quarter of the 21st century would be unsustainable for agriculture and infrastructure even if this 2026 is as bad as it gets. Climate is not a branch of science. There is no such thing as 'geoengineering'. Climate is not a year or century or date. sealover wrote: Dr. Hansen says there is no way to address the problem by obsessing on reduction of emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion. There is no problem. Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't combust. sealover wrote: Dr. Mann says Dr. Hansen is being a very bad boy scaring everybody, and that we just have to tighten our belts enough with the reduced fossil fuel associated emission emissions approach. Fossils are not used as fuel. sealover wrote: I happen to agree with Dr. Hansen. It's a five alarm fire, and too many scientists are complacent that it's only a two or three alarm fire. What 'fire'? sealover wrote: Here at climate-debate.com they'd probably say that there is no fire at all. Or that there is no such thing as fire. Or that everyone knows the ONLY way to fight fire is with fire. Why first responders at the fire department are equipped with flame throwers. Word games won't help you, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-06-2026 21:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	sealover wrote: Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann have strongly differing opinion on whether or not relatively extreme measures along the lines of geoengineering will be necessary if we hope to ever get back to 20th century type climate. * "opinion" needs to be plural, i.e. "opinions"; the same opinion cannot strongly differ from itself. You make the same kind of errors as "Patricio." Hmmmmm. * "geoengineering" is a dogmatic religious term, solidifying the religious context of your proselytizing. * Nobody has any reason to "hope to ever get back" to a climate that has never changed. sealover wrote: The global weirding of the first quarter of the 21st century would be unsustainable for agriculture and infrastructure even if this 2026 is as bad as it gets. Incoherent babbling, equivalent to a random word generator. sealover wrote: Dr. Hansen says there is no way to address the problem by obsessing on reduction of emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion. Fossils don't need/use any fuel, and fossils aren't burned as fuel. You seem just as unable to learn as "Patricio". sealover wrote: I happen to agree with Dr. Hansen. Imagine that, two firebrand preachers of the same religion happen to concur on matters of their shared faith. Who would have guessed? sealover wrote: It's a five alarm fire, and too many scientists are complacent that it's only a two or three alarm fire. There are still no scientists claiming any science supports either your religious doctrine or your dogmatic gibber-babble of doom-n-gloom. sealover wrote: Here at climate-debate.com they'd probably say that there is no fire at all. Correct. There is no fire here at climate-debate.com sealover wrote: Or that there is no such thing as fire. So first water doesn't evaporate and now there is no such thing as fire? sealover wrote: Why first responders at the fire department are equipped with flame throwers. ... to burn the books.

Join the debate On Richard Lindzen, the Art of Strategic Doubt, and Why "Cautious Concern" Is the Grown-Up Posi:

Threads	Replies	Last post
to whom it may concern	13	14-05-2024 02:07
The USS Bonhomme Richard was destroyed by a LITHIUM ION BATTERY FIRE	1	20-01-2023 14:33
A Growing Concern	2	21-08-2022 18:39
Elmer Fudd aka Richard Hayden is calling for Trumps execution, because Trump knows how JFK was murdered	0	12-08-2022 19:34
Americans' energy use surges despite climate change concern	0	19-04-2019 14:57