A prominent climate scientist has warned that the picture of climate change presented in the IPCC’s narrative is simplistic, ill-conceived, and undermined by observational evidence.
In a new discussion paper, Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) points out that the official picture, focusing narrowly on carbon dioxide as a warming agent, becomes implausible when applied to the details of the climate system. [bold, links added]
According to Lindzen:
“If you are going to blame everything on carbon dioxide, you have to explain why, on all timescales, temperatures in the tropics are extremely stable while those in high latitudes are much more variable.
“The IPCC’s story is that small amounts of greenhouse warming near the equator are ‘amplified’ at high latitudes. But neither theory nor data support the idea of amplification.”
Instead, says Lindzen, this pattern – of stable tropical temperatures and fluctuating ones in high latitudes – is mostly a function of natural processes in the atmosphere and oceans; in other words, changes in oceanic and atmospheric currents that transport heat poleward while drawing varying amounts of heat out of the tropics.
These changes in transport affect the tropics, but they are not determined by the tropics.
“The changes in the Earth’s so-called temperature are mainly due to changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles – at least for major changes.
“The changes in tropical temperature, which are influenced by greenhouse processes, are a minor contribution.”
Richard Lindzen: An assessment of the conventional global warming narrative (pdf)
Many who promote the Global Warming idea keep wishing to discredit Richard Lindzen in particular, and others like whom who pose valid arguments refuting the CO2 forcing. Just keep in mind that, after all these years, if Lindzen were really off-base in his pronouncements on climate and the absurdity of human-caused global warming, MIT would have invited him to leave a long time ago. Yet he remains.
ABSTRACT from the paper — a better summary than the article here:
The one-dimensional picture of the greenhouse effect and the
role of carbon dioxide in this mechanism dominates current depictions of climate and global warming. We briefly review this picture.
We then discuss the shortcomings of this approach in dealing with the three-dimensional climate system.
One problem is determining what temperature on the real Earth corresponds to
the temperature in the one-dimensional treatment.
This, in turn, leads to the traditional recognition that the Earth has, in fact,
many climate regimes at present.
Moreover, there have been profound changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and polar regions over millennia, but at the same time the temperature of the tropical regions has remained little changed.
The popular narrative assumes that small changes in the tropics are
amplified at high latitudes.
There is no basis for this assumption.
Rather, the difference is determined by dynamic heat fluxes in the
atmosphere and oceans, with the controlling flux due to baroclinic instability in the atmosphere.
Changes in mean temperature are primarily due to changes in the tropic-to-pole difference, and not to changes in the greenhouse effect.
The stability of tropical temperatures in the face of strongly varying heat fluxes out from those latitudes points to the existence of strong negative feedbacks in the radiative-convective response of the tropics.
Finally, we will comment on the so-called impacts of climate change
IPCC is a a Globalists group with connections to the UN and other globalists
IPPC/UN has previously admitted that their climate change dictates are a disguise to implement global wealth transfer. It’s a 100% globalist control tax plan; clever isn’t it countries are funding IPSS/UN, implementing their climate rules (Paris Accord) effectively funding their subjugation and demise.
Sorry, fingers not working–read IPCC/UN
Unfortunately, none of the theorums or observational data that undercuts the “climate change” narrative and inaccurate modeling/forecasting currently matter. Until we can get utilities & energy companies “pushing back” on ridiculous green mandates, university scholars & scientits having the COURAGE to speak out in defense of the scientific method & TRUTH, informed government officials & politicians and (at least) a segment of the media willing to engage in HONEST journalism & promoting legitimate debate, this nonsense is only going to continue. Right now, through complacency & disinterest, the American electorate has enabled the “climate mission creep” actively promoted by activists across a wide spectrum of our daily life. Time for the next revolution and a return to civilzed discourse and CRITICAL THINKING before this gets any worse…