Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Climate \"Science\" | Dr. Richard Lindzen | EP 320" video.

  1.  @emil_rainbow  His publications, his relevant experience with atmospheric models, and his honesty in describing how those models actually (don't) work.
    23
  2.  @RomanGolubev_A  Their baseline is not long enough to be useful.
    2
  3. "I'm sort of glad I'm not teaching at this point" The exact problem we are facing, is the near-total capture of our institutions because of the departure of good men. The fact that he left his post should not be something he passes off with a lightly embarrassed chuckle.
    1
  4. Peterson: "Do you think we have any existential worries on the climate front?" Lindzen: "Not for the next five thousand years." Mic drop, 1:05:18
    1
  5.  @danielr890  How can you predict future climate without accurate models? Accurate models are not even theoretically possible. The way they slice and dice the numbers, theses models aren't science, they're sausage.
    1
  6.  @RomanGolubev_A  We know that increase in CO2 increases heat retention, as the absorption spectrum of CO2 over Earth's blackbody curve ends up trapping some wavelengths. We also know (through a fairly simple calculation) that even if you burned every molecule of fossil fuel we know of on Earth, that would only trap enough heat to raise global temperatures hundredths of a degree, a couple tenths at most.
    1
  7. "The gross idea of the greenhouse does have some value" Yes. Doing a simple thermal balance calculation for the Earth, including albedo, radiative heat transfer from the Sun, and radiative heat transfer into space, is something any sophomore Thermo student can do. You can see that the Earth is warmer by a number of degrees, than that simple heat balance would imply. Further, you can use the differential between the opaqueness / transparency of CO2 over the spectrum of sunlight, and its opaqueness / transparency over the spectrum of the Earth as a blackbody radiator, to calculate how much warming different partial pressures of CO2 would cause. Dr. Lindzen's favorite word, "minuscule", is perfectly applicable here.
    1
  8. Looking at mid 20th century science fiction (Asimov, Herbert, Niven and Pournelle, etc) you see two themes: one, the cynical creation of religion(s), and two, the idea of civilizational collapse and recovery. Asimov's Foundation, Niven and Pournelle's Mote Prime, they deal with this theme. What if at some point, some influential people in the world decided that to recover after a global collapse, fossil fuels were essential, and we must maintain some reserves that are to be set aside as sacred, so that we could re-emerge into industrial civilization? Wind and hydro can't be used at industrial scale without existing industrial power. Nuclear and solar can't be used at all, without an industrial base. (Nuclear has the additional complication of region-destroying disaster in the event of a collapse.) That leaves fossil fuels as the key to civilization recovering from any Dark Age. As far as I can see, this explains some very strange aspects of today's environmentalism. The first is the abovementioned aversion to Nuclear. Then there is the tolerance of 3rd world countries' continued use of fossil fuels, to industrialize in the first place. Then, there is is the tendency of supposedly Green politicians, to import petrochemicals from other countries (like Venezuela) to power the United States. And finally, it explains why all of this is being pushed with the trappings of a religion. Aside from the fact that it seems to wander off into conspiracy-land, I'm having trouble finding problems with this theory.
    1
  9. Professor Peterson, I hear that Canada wants you to take a "Social Media Training" course. For your next Daily Wire project, could you please TEACH a "Social Media Training" course?
    1
  10. 1:14:00 I love this discussion of computer models. This matches perfectly with my experience with them.
    1