Ron--On your questions: 1. I don’t recall there being a rebuttal to my 2007 response; easier I guess just to ignore it. 2. Not other than what was in his Powerpoint as presented to the UK panel, where he seems to suggest that it is just part of a large fluctuation, and there have always been changes. Just as Fred Singer does, he basically slides by hard questions like this. 3. I have not seen a response (yet) to Bill Nordhaus comment.
And given you liked the response to Lindzen and may be a glutton for punishment, there are a couple of other detailed responses of mine at climatesciencewatch.org --see: Response to a paper by Will Happer at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/09/21/maccracken-v-happer-the-real-t ruth-about-greenhouse-gases-and-climate-change/ Comments on talk by Roger Pielke Sr at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2009/06/01/michael-maccracken’s-review-of -roger-pielke-sr-’s-may-14-climate-talk-to-the-marshall-institute/ Response to article by the Robinsons (the ones who made their paper look as if it had been published in PNAS) is at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2008/07/25/michael-maccracken’s-analysis- of-errors-in-robinson-robinson-and-soon-2007-contrarian-article/ On David Legates at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2006/06/11/refuting-a-global-warming-deni er/ (and there is also somewhere a legal declaration responding to one of his in a court case some years ago) Mike MacCracken On 3/2/12 3:43 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-sm > acks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ > (above an early version - or today: > > http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-sla > ms-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburner&u > tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progres > s%29 > > with the original at: > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skepti > cs-are-wrong/ > > Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for > truncating his full reply. > > Ron > > 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.
