Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs:
1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well
done. Thanks for going to all that effort.
2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other
denier?)
3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing
Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence
of rapid climate change)
Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 -
and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5
years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000
km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve
value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago).
(cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi) -
This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000
km3).
If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us
into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about
2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted
points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year).
Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png
Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on
adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)]
4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new
rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus?
Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the
WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm
at):
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/
(above an early version - or today:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29
with the original at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full
reply.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], "Geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that
Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put
together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19
points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand
it does get at least some hits. See
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea
ding-newsweek-op-ed/
As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them
<long snip - including two earlier>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
