Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause.
He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. In the past few years, he has been studying the influence of temperature on cumulus convection and its role in generating cirrus decks. The results so far strongly suggest a powerful negative feedback in climate.
He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate.
Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and the AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Fellow of the AAAS. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)
Thank you for posting the presentation. I have admired Prof. Lindzen for a while. He, Michael Crichton, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Patrick Michael and many others have contributed so much to counter the faulty science behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.
We are apparently entering a Solar minimum which may lead to a period of Global Cooling. Visit http://www.solarcycle24.com and research John Casey, Director of the Space and Science Research Center. And visit Roy Spencer, Ph. D. .
Come on!! Don't you realize this guy is a heretic not capable of giving a peer reviewed opinion! He will be pilloried and burnt at the stake in front of the college!!!!!
(^^^^this is sarcasm)
Thanks for the link to this brave scientist's report!!!
The guy is just an idiot and does not know the truth like Al Gore does. Gore is brilliant (compared to Jon Bon Jovi).
Every legitimate scientist knows that global warming is a scam. It is simply a matter at this point how much money Gore will make and how much damage will be inflicted on the US economy. Gangsterism can be a little pricey- net flow of money from citizens to Al Gore.
I do find it interesting (and not in a sarcastic way) that anyone who disagrees with global warming would cite a Harvard educated, MIT professor. I'm not a bit suprised that the OP neglected to mention that everyone else who served on the panel with him, found major fault with his views. Or that Lindzen himself had some serious reservations about his hypothesis;
Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fuels lab at Princeton University did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science
Jerry Schneider of Stanford University criticized Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity (the global mean temperature increase associated with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations), arguing that it was too specific given the available evidence.
So, we have one guy out of many who worked on a panel, and his opinions regarding the science and the policy are outside the mainstream of panel members. There may be a valid reason for his "outlier" opinions; In a 1995 Harpers Magazine article it was pointed out (and not denied) that "Lindzen accepts $2500/day in fees for consulting with oil and gas companies, his 1991 trip to testify before congress was paid for by Western Fuels and a major paper he authored denying global warming was underwritten by OPEC."
So, he's being paid for his "unbiased" opinions?
But thanks for at least admitting that sometimes, albeit rarely you admire something said by "them educated pointy headed professor types".
I do find it interesting (and not in a sarcastic way) that anyone who disagrees with global warming would cite a Harvard educated, MIT professor. I'm not a bit suprised that the OP neglected to mention that everyone else who served on the panel with him, found major fault with his views. Or that Lindzen himself had some serious reservations about his hypothesis;
Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fuels lab at Princeton University did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science
Jerry Schneider of Stanford University criticized Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity (the global mean temperature increase associated with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations), arguing that it was too specific given the available evidence.
So, we have one guy out of many who worked on a panel, and his opinions regarding the science and the policy are outside the mainstream of panel members. There may be a valid reason for his "outlier" opinions; In a 1995 Harpers Magazine article it was pointed out (and not denied) that "Lindzen accepts $2500/day in fees for consulting with oil and gas companies, his 1991 trip to testify before congress was paid for by Western Fuels and a major paper he authored denying global warming was underwritten by OPEC."
So, he's being paid for his "unbiased" opinions?
But thanks for at least admitting that sometimes, albeit rarely you admire something said by "them educated pointy headed professor types".
golfgod
Only when they agree with them.
Most scientists agree that global climate change is happening, and is impacted by human emissions of CO2.
As an alum, I was happily surprised when a few weeks ago a senior M.I.T. professor directed me to major study by a dozen leading experts associated with their Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change that made clear M.I.T. had joined the climate realists.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has just doubled its previous (2003) projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C. Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm. Human civilization as we know it could not survive such warming, such concentrations (see likely impacts here (http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%c2%b0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/ - broken link)).
So, you're right... MIT does have prestige.. and they disagree with Lindzen.
I do find it interesting (and not in a sarcastic way) that anyone who disagrees with global warming would cite a Harvard educated, MIT professor. I'm not a bit suprised that the OP neglected to mention that everyone else who served on the panel with him, found major fault with his views. Or that Lindzen himself had some serious reservations about his hypothesis;
Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fuels lab at Princeton University did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science
Jerry Schneider of Stanford University criticized Lindzen's estimate of climate sensitivity (the global mean temperature increase associated with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations), arguing that it was too specific given the available evidence.
So, we have one guy out of many who worked on a panel, and his opinions regarding the science and the policy are outside the mainstream of panel members. There may be a valid reason for his "outlier" opinions; In a 1995 Harpers Magazine article it was pointed out (and not denied) that "Lindzen accepts $2500/day in fees for consulting with oil and gas companies, his 1991 trip to testify before congress was paid for by Western Fuels and a major paper he authored denying global warming was underwritten by OPEC."
So, he's being paid for his "unbiased" opinions?
But thanks for at least admitting that sometimes, albeit rarely you admire something said by "them educated pointy headed professor types".
golfgod
Of course, you failed to do a quick google concerning whether the schools the other people represent get any grant money from the UN and other Algore supported sources. Why don't you do a check about that before going wild again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
