Lindzen represents the best of a dying breed in the sciences. As he alluded to, the cooperation and camaraderie of intellectuals in the past has given way to a kind of isolation engendered by the pressure to generate funding. This pressure stifles independent and especially controversial research in favor of "consensus" studies dictated by politics, governments and corporations. Galilleo is turning over in his grave.
It's sad. Even Hanson's submissions, complete with 'amended data' were given the stamp of peer review. How much does it cost to buy a concurring peer review?
When a master is lecturing experts expect a different language, and technical terms unknown even to most highly educated people. It must drive Lindzen crazy trying to explain the science to politicians who struggle to grasp even the concept of a convection current, and don't retain what is explained to them.
With an average IQ (in the US) of around 100 " Milankovitch Cycles " , " Solar cycles ", " Ice Ages " , " modeling chaotic systems " is no problema ...
The public does not actually need to understand, as i dont. But they could realize that THE true expert is not supporting the current globalist, elitist, alarmist, socialist rethoric on climate. It could open their eyes. There are other good videos of him being critical of the mainstream rethoric.
I saw a vid once that featured the Times online top green investors. 3,5 billion invested and Google (which includes UA-cam) was on it. Now it seems the same people are fixing elections. I really hope Trump's legal team pull through.
Controversial and genius. Richard Lindzen is the man. Only a physicist trained in mathematics can do things as this man can do in atmospheric sciences!!!
Dude, everyone in physics is trained in math. You cant do the claases without it. Check the prerequisites for upper division or graduate physics classes at any university. Every quarter they spend a week or so reviewing the math needed for the rest of the course.
I used to be able to and Google search engine who the world's preeminent atmospheric physicist was and it would bring up Richard lindzen. Now it wants to give me a list of climate scientists. Which is a completely made up science.
The point is we are on a globe with different seasons at different times & we have various biomes. So it makes no sense to take say 7 continents & average 7 temps & tell the folks the average of the planet is X. Even if we carved those 7 up into 14, it's bunk. The planet is too big with too much geomorphology. So an average is impractical. Of course the media, at the end of every summer, rushes to print that they know what the average increase was for that summer. They base it on the North American summer & they have the numbers right away. Bunk. You would have to have a gazillion temp stations all over the earth & put this in a computer. But the media for all intents & purposes is pravda. It's still cold on top of Mt. Everest & it's still hot in an Indonesian rainforest. Then there are microclimates. Again the media does not recognize anomalies. One year the jet stream rides high, another year it rides low. In CT 2020 we have had no storm fronts & no cold freeze. However, the last 2 springs were rainy & raw. 2012 & 2014/15 were polar vortices. That is relevant only to CT. It has nothing to do with Mauna Loa or Indonesia.
For certain: the mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is given equivalently as P = 1.013x105 Pa = 1013 hPa = 1013 mb = 1 atm = 760 torr. How the climate experiences change due to sensitivity - attinuation or amplification - of key imputs --- much less certain.
Charlie Brown nearly all surface temperature is based on the ideal gas law for planets with thick atmospheres- titan, venus and earth verify this. There are fluctuations around the mean due to solar incidence, cloud cover, atmospheric variances etc but PV=nRT will give you surface temperatures within a small range.
Avaaz says “There is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor [in climate change].” Richard Lindzen in Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? -A video being promoted by UA-cam’s algorithm with 1.9 million view
i love how everyone "the alarmists", make comments how nothing is being done to fight climate change. Ok, like what? How many of you out there are going to give up your heat, cooling, refrigerators, cars, electric, or your internet. Nobody is going argue that.
ted that and hundreds of billions a year being wasted on global warming shindigs all over the world, bad science, and unreliable, expensive energy sources consuming huge amounts of mined materials and tracts of land.
Fossil fuels continue to account for the largest share of energy consumption in the United States. In 2018, about 79% of domestic energy production was from fossil fuels, and 80% of domestic energy consumption originated from fossil fuels. Here is "green" Vermont "about three-fifths of the energy consumed in the state (VT) is petroleum-based" "Vermont's single natural gas utility receives its natural gas from a small-capacity pipeline that brings natural gas south from Canada. The utility distributes natural gas in three counties in the Burlington, Vermont, area" "Per capita petroleum consumption in Vermont is higher than the national average, but the state's long-term goal is to eliminate most petroleum use. The transportation sector consumes about three-fifths of all petroleum used in Vermont" "Vermont is part of the six-state Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE) regional grid, which receives a decreasing share of its power from coal-fired power plants, but Vermont remains dependent on out-of-state coal facilities during periods of peak electricity demand".
There is a strong "it is all settled" mindset nowadays, hence all that is left to show how it is settled. I tend to believe not that much is settled especially about the underlying dynamics of climate, it would be wiser to revisit the topic in lower level approach from time to time, in any domain so to speak. I believe Prof. Lindzen and likeminded academicians/scientists does not dwell on whether there is climate crisis or not, they would rather asses the methodologies and approaches used
Just a quick comment. But add I understand it, it's not just the earth that's currently warming. Other planets in the solar system are warming too. Any comments?
Tim Malet what timeframe? Over a longer time earth is cooling. I have not seen long term data on other planets. Its likely we have no palaeoclimatological data for other planets as we dont have access to proxies like we do on earth. Short term temperature variances like the decadal 0.13C warming over the last 40 years is almost meaningless and on the limits of measure ability. From another planet the minimal warming that has occurred on earth may not have been detectable amongst the daily variance of 10C or greater. When you look at the chaotic climates on other planets, like the 2000 mile wide storm raging on 🪐 , you realize earths climate is incredibly benign.
@@KingComputerSydney we on the earth are coming near the end of our nice warm period. I think it's not warming that should be worried about. We should warm the atmosphere a little to offset the next Ice age. We can adapt to warming. With a budget of 50 to 1less than we would be spending on trying to change what's happening. Which we can't anyway. Theres a youtube set of videos about this called 50to1.
@@KingComputerSydney the other plant example in put was just to exemplify that its not just us and we are not in control. Presessionary long term tilts and alignments cause so much more that the piddly amount of agw co2.
Our CO2 emissions are obvious leaving our atmosphere and warming all the other planets too. We need to stop CO2 emissions immediately before the kebabalypse of our entire solar shitstorm
Kim Libera day to night in one place does not exhibit one temperature either, with daily temperatures often 100x that of the decadal mean variations. We live on a very dynamic planet, yet relative to other planets very benign.
@@jbw6823 how do you calculate that average, given the limited over of weather stations, and lack of accuracy of many even in developed countries. You aren't getting an average across the planet, only a small selection from some places using ground based measures, and the inaccuracy and lack of consistency over long periods puts the ability to assess long term temperature changes in serious doubt.
The last 11 years have been the 11 warmest years on record ever recorded.... Nothing to worry about... This guy shows that you can be an brilliant MIT professor and be very very wrong.
But your statement is the counter? Your simple decision based on 11 years is the reason why we should make major world wide changes? He may be wrong but having people that have a huge understanding of climate science should be listened to as much as the ones that have much less experience and knowledge. However politicians maybe should be letting us hear from the scientists instead of telling all of us what the scientists are saying. They only tell us what some are saying. In the end no one has a practical solution for their supposed the sky is falling problem. Climate problems seem to me to not be a right or wrong kind of problem. Predicting the future is a tough thing. Predicting the climate is even tougher.
560 million years of climate recorded in sediments. Only the last 170 years matter. The creator of the hockey stick graph used tree rings as a proxy. When you examine tree rings for those years of the vertical there is no up tic. So if they had been a previous spike it would not show. The UN report no way to predict future changes in the climate. Since 2004 no evidence of warming from ground observed temperatures. Just because you disagree doesn't make someone wrong.
@@calvinroyals6463 if your last line is true than it’s valid for both sides of an argument. My statement was less of an argument and more of a question as to why we do not hear more scientists talk instead of politicians, the media and Greta Thunberg. If this truly is the crisis it is then show us all an intelligent debate between both parties. Then at least we’ll have a reason to look at solutions. Ah so,unions, that is another conundrum isn’t it. How to reverse it. That will be an even larger problem even if the majority are convinced.
@@jamesjameson4303 I can agree with fewer Media and Politicans clutching their pearles wringing their hands doing nothing. But telling me to alter my life style. While their Jet exhausts more in one flight than my pick up does in a year. The more I learn about how co2 and water vapor function in our atmosphere. How the planet is greening. The less inclined I am to support reversing co2 emissions. Because in the case of co2 should we over react and start removing , then remove to much that would be dooms. Day. The current lever of CO2 has increased biomass by 31% + or - 4 % I see that as a very good start.
@@calvinroyals6463 I’m still on the fence but I hear you and don’t blame you. They are not informing us, they are telling us. Keep driving that pickup and enjoying life.
Lindzen represents the best of a dying breed in the sciences. As he alluded to, the cooperation and camaraderie of intellectuals in the past has given way to a kind of isolation engendered by the pressure to generate funding. This pressure stifles independent and especially controversial research in favor of "consensus" studies dictated by politics, governments and corporations. Galilleo is turning over in his grave.
holy shit you pretentious dweeb hahaha
@@kevinmathewson4272 of corse you must be unpretentious such is your intelligent response. Dweeb is the best response in your case isn’t it?
It's sad. Even Hanson's submissions, complete with 'amended data' were given the stamp of peer review. How much does it cost to buy a concurring peer review?
Thanks capitalism
@@jamesjameson4303 Drank the Kool Aid did you? Algorian dogma is your thing, right?
He is the man
When a master is lecturing experts expect a different language, and technical terms unknown even to most highly educated people. It must drive Lindzen crazy trying to explain the science to politicians who struggle to grasp even the concept of a convection current, and don't retain what is explained to them.
@Billy Anderson BINGO ;)
Even if they could understand, they still wouldn't put forth meaningful policy as it goes against their own political interests.
@@canchem9825 I belive he did advise trump. And trump subsequently pulled out of Paris accord
@@frederickarchibaldchumly-w2163 I think William Harper advised trump as i have in memory
With an average IQ (in the US) of around 100 " Milankovitch Cycles " ,
" Solar cycles ", " Ice Ages " , " modeling chaotic systems " is no problema ...
Google doing a great job keeping this from the public
99.9% of 'the public' would not understand what was said even if they stayed with the video for more than a minute.
ZigZagHockey it’s scary when they find it easier to prefer to listen to an autistic teenager
Devin Glen Google has its thumb on the scale. Debunkers of skeptical videos always rank higher even when they are junky and with few views.
The public does not actually need to understand, as i dont. But they could realize that THE true expert is not supporting the current globalist, elitist, alarmist, socialist rethoric on climate. It could open their eyes. There are other good videos of him being critical of the mainstream rethoric.
I saw a vid once that featured the Times online top green investors. 3,5 billion invested and Google (which includes UA-cam) was on it. Now it seems the same people are fixing elections. I really hope Trump's legal team pull through.
This is what every American needs to review, there is No Climate crisis
Controversial and genius. Richard Lindzen is the man. Only a physicist trained in mathematics can do things as this man can do in atmospheric sciences!!!
Dude, everyone in physics is trained in math. You cant do the claases without it. Check the prerequisites for upper division or graduate physics classes at any university. Every quarter they spend a week or so reviewing the math needed for the rest of the course.
I used to be able to and Google search engine who the world's preeminent atmospheric physicist was and it would bring up Richard lindzen.
Now it wants to give me a list of climate scientists. Which is a completely made up science.
@@jbw6823 bull shit most applied math PhD work doing math for Physisists
The best of the best!
The point is we are on a globe with different seasons at different times & we have various biomes. So it makes no sense to take say 7 continents & average 7 temps & tell the folks the average of the planet is X. Even if we carved those 7 up into 14, it's bunk. The planet is too big with too much geomorphology. So an average is impractical. Of course the media, at the end of every summer, rushes to print that they know what the average increase was for that summer. They base it on the North American summer & they have the numbers right away. Bunk. You would have to have a gazillion temp stations all over the earth & put this in a computer. But the media for all intents & purposes is pravda. It's still cold on top of Mt. Everest & it's still hot in an Indonesian rainforest. Then there are microclimates. Again the media does not recognize anomalies. One year the jet stream rides high, another year it rides low. In CT 2020 we have had no storm fronts & no cold freeze. However, the last 2 springs were rainy & raw. 2012 & 2014/15 were polar vortices. That is relevant only to CT. It has nothing to do with Mauna Loa or Indonesia.
For certain: the mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is given equivalently as
P = 1.013x105 Pa = 1013 hPa = 1013 mb = 1 atm = 760 torr.
How the climate experiences change due to sensitivity - attinuation or amplification - of key imputs --- much less certain.
Charlie Brown nearly all surface temperature is based on the ideal gas law for planets with thick atmospheres- titan, venus and earth verify this. There are fluctuations around the mean due to solar incidence, cloud cover, atmospheric variances etc but PV=nRT will give you surface temperatures within a small range.
Avaaz says “There is no evidence that CO2 emissions are
the dominant factor [in climate change].”
Richard Lindzen in Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? -A video being
promoted by UA-cam’s algorithm with 1.9 million view
i love how everyone "the alarmists", make comments how nothing is being done to fight climate change. Ok, like what? How many of you out there are going to give up your heat, cooling, refrigerators, cars, electric, or your internet. Nobody is going argue that.
ted that and hundreds of billions a year being wasted on global warming shindigs all over the world, bad science, and unreliable, expensive energy sources consuming huge amounts of mined materials and tracts of land.
Fossil fuels continue to account for the largest share of energy consumption in the United States. In 2018, about 79% of domestic energy production was from fossil fuels, and 80% of domestic energy consumption originated from fossil fuels.
Here is "green" Vermont "about three-fifths of the energy consumed in the state (VT) is petroleum-based" "Vermont's single natural gas utility receives its natural gas from a small-capacity pipeline that brings natural gas south from Canada. The utility distributes natural gas in three counties in the Burlington, Vermont, area" "Per capita petroleum consumption in Vermont is higher than the national average, but the state's long-term goal is to eliminate most petroleum use. The transportation sector consumes about three-fifths of all petroleum used in Vermont" "Vermont is part of the six-state Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE) regional grid, which receives a decreasing share of its power from coal-fired power plants, but Vermont remains dependent on out-of-state coal facilities during periods of peak electricity demand".
There is a strong "it is all settled" mindset nowadays, hence all that is left to show how it is settled. I tend to believe not that much is settled especially about the underlying dynamics of climate, it would be wiser to revisit the topic in lower level approach from time to time, in any domain so to speak. I believe Prof. Lindzen and likeminded academicians/scientists does not dwell on whether there is climate crisis or not, they would rather asses the methodologies and approaches used
Just a quick comment. But add I understand it, it's not just the earth that's currently warming. Other planets in the solar system are warming too. Any comments?
Interesting Thought.
Tim Malet what timeframe? Over a longer time earth is cooling. I have not seen long term data on other planets. Its likely we have no palaeoclimatological data for other planets as we dont have access to proxies like we do on earth. Short term temperature variances like the decadal 0.13C warming over the last 40 years is almost meaningless and on the limits of measure ability. From another planet the minimal warming that has occurred on earth may not have been detectable amongst the daily variance of 10C or greater. When you look at the chaotic climates on other planets, like the 2000 mile wide storm raging on 🪐 , you realize earths climate is incredibly benign.
@@KingComputerSydney we on the earth are coming near the end of our nice warm period. I think it's not warming that should be worried about. We should warm the atmosphere a little to offset the next Ice age. We can adapt to warming. With a budget of 50 to 1less than we would be spending on trying to change what's happening. Which we can't anyway. Theres a youtube set of videos about this called 50to1.
@@KingComputerSydney the other plant example in put was just to exemplify that its not just us and we are not in control. Presessionary long term tilts and alignments cause so much more that the piddly amount of agw co2.
Our CO2 emissions are obvious leaving our atmosphere and warming all the other planets too. We need to stop CO2 emissions immediately before the kebabalypse of our entire solar shitstorm
The comments on this have got me creasing
"This guy uses big words AND supports my worldview, they don't make 'em like this any more!" classic hahaha
I was suspicious of him at first but after I saw the prominent tuft of unkempt hair on top I knew he is the real thing
Este hombre sabe cómo aburrir al público.
Folks the earth does not possess one temperature.
Kim Libera day to night in one place does not exhibit one temperature either, with daily temperatures often 100x that of the decadal mean variations. We live on a very dynamic planet, yet relative to other planets very benign.
@@jbw6823 You can't get a real average b/c your sample size has to cover the entire planet.
@@jbw6823 how do you calculate that average, given the limited over of weather stations, and lack of accuracy of many even in developed countries. You aren't getting an average across the planet, only a small selection from some places using ground based measures, and the inaccuracy and lack of consistency over long periods puts the ability to assess long term temperature changes in serious doubt.
Mr "We know nothing." :D
The last 11 years have been the 11 warmest years on record ever recorded.... Nothing to worry about... This guy shows that you can be an brilliant MIT professor and be very very wrong.
But your statement is the counter? Your simple decision based on 11 years is the reason why we should make major world wide changes?
He may be wrong but having people that have a huge understanding of climate science should be listened to as much as the ones that have much less experience and knowledge. However politicians maybe should be letting us hear from the scientists instead of telling all of us what the scientists are saying. They only tell us what some are saying.
In the end no one has a practical solution for their supposed the sky is falling problem. Climate problems seem to me to not be a right or wrong kind of problem. Predicting the future is a tough thing. Predicting the climate is even tougher.
560 million years of climate recorded in sediments. Only the last 170 years matter.
The creator of the hockey stick graph used tree rings as a proxy. When you examine tree rings for those years of the vertical there is no up tic. So if they had been a previous spike it would not show.
The UN report no way to predict future changes in the climate. Since 2004 no evidence of warming from ground observed temperatures.
Just because you disagree doesn't make someone wrong.
@@calvinroyals6463 if your last line is true than it’s valid for both sides of an argument. My statement was less of an argument and more of a question as to why we do not hear more scientists talk instead of politicians, the media and Greta Thunberg. If this truly is the crisis it is then show us all an intelligent debate between both parties. Then at least we’ll have a reason to look at solutions. Ah so,unions, that is another conundrum isn’t it. How to reverse it. That will be an even larger problem even if the majority are convinced.
@@jamesjameson4303 I can agree with fewer Media and Politicans clutching their pearles wringing their hands doing nothing. But telling me to alter my life style. While their Jet exhausts more in one flight than my pick up does in a year. The more I learn about how co2 and water vapor function in our atmosphere. How the planet is greening. The less inclined I am to support reversing co2 emissions. Because in the case of co2 should we over react and start removing , then remove to much that would be dooms. Day. The current lever of CO2 has increased biomass by 31% + or - 4 % I see that as a very good start.
@@calvinroyals6463 I’m still on the fence but I hear you and don’t blame you. They are not informing us, they are telling us. Keep driving that pickup and enjoying life.
This professor I have seen played by Benny Hill.
Five years has proved Richard lindzen is a quack as the Earth is dying.
Richard Lindzen is a professor of atmospheric physics. What have you got?