Nuttercelli’s Fake “Lindzen” Forecast Had No Basis And Was Completely Fraudulent

Willis Eschenbach dug up a report on Lindzen’s 1989 speech, which Dana used to create his fake “Lindzen” forecast. Lindzen was criticizing the integrity of the temperature record, not making a forecast.

ScreenHunter_1691 Jan. 13 14.29

Here is the 1989 report.

]]]]]]]]] LINDZEN CRITICAL OF GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTION [[[[[[[[
(10/17/1989)
by Eugene F. Mallove
M.I.T. TECH TALK, 9/27/1989

Dire predictions of global warming through the greenhouse effect were roundly criticized last week by Professor Richard Lindzen of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

“I argue that the greenhouse effect does not seem to be as
significant as suggested.” Professor Lindzen said. He spoke last
week before an audience of 250 scientists at the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation Colloquium at Kresge Auditorium.

I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,” he said. “And I certainly feel that there is time and need for research before making major policy decisions.”

Professor Lindzen characterized the question of possible global
warming as “a region in which the uncertainty is vast.” He then
proceeded systematically to expose major difficulties with projections of global climate.

Has warming already occurred?

What does the temperature record already show about global
warming? Do the data conclusively indicate about one-half degree centigrade (plus or minus 0.2 degree) global warming over the last century, as some proponents suggest? No, contends Professor Lindzen.

Professor Lindzen cited many problems with the temperature
records, an example being the representation of the Atlantic Ocean with only four island measurement sites. Urbanization also creates problems in interpreting the temperature record, he said. There is the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming over cities–in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example.

“The trouble with many of these records,” he said, “is that the
corrections are of the order of the effects, and most of us know that when we’re in that boat we need a long series and great care to derive a meaningful signal.”

Nor, he said, was the temperature data collected in a very
systematic and uniform way prior to 1880, so comparisons often begin with temperatures around 1880. “The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree.”

He referred to MIT Professor Reginald Newell’s work that suggests that between the 19th century and the present there appears to be no change in ocean surface temperatures. Moreover, the record for the 48 contiguous states shows no evidence for warming over the past century.

As far as the data goes, I would argue that we really don’t have the basis for saying it’s a half degree plus or minus 0.2. That is false use of science. What we have is data that says that maybe it occurs, but it’s within the noise.

LINDZEN CRITICAL OF GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTION

Lindzen’s analysis precisely agreed with published temperature data, which showed about 0.1C warming from the mid 1870’s to 1989, and swings in natural variability of 0.7C.

ScreenHunter_1796 Jan. 15 05.52

web.archive.org/web/19990220235952/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt

Why does the Guardian continue to publish Dana’s blatantly fraudulent writing? Not only was Dana’s “Lindzen” forecast fake, but his representation of the data did not even vaguely represent reality. None of the temperature data sets are anywhere near Scenario B.

ScreenHunter_1741 Jan. 14 09.31

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Nuttercelli’s Fake “Lindzen” Forecast Had No Basis And Was Completely Fraudulent

  1. Jean-Paul says:

    Dear Steven,
    the Guardian continues to publish that rubbish because :
    a) its journalists aren’t able to see, and even less decide, if it is valid or not;
    b) because CAGW is a question of leftist politics, not of science.

  2. gator69 says:

    Dana’s strawman forecast, tin man argument, wizard data, and lion.

  3. John Greenfraud says:

    “Why does the Guardian continue to publish Dana’s blatantly fraudulent writing?”
    Because Dana is a deluded, self-righteous, overbearing, prat. In a nutshell: Marxist synergy.

  4. BG says:

    Yeah, they fudged it…

    But the Orwellian named “skepticalscience.com” of which Dana Nuttercelli represents, has done it again. What these guys do is DECEIVE. and its really bothersome. They come up with a “scientific” explanation of why the warmists are correct and buttress it with bogus pseudo-science buried deep in their web-page.

    Witness the “explanation” of why Hansen’s 1988 prediction is “correct” even though it appears obviously wrong:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

    Well Hansen has three Scenarios:

    A increase in greenhouse gas emissions (exactly what happened)
    B maintenance of said emissions
    C significant decrease in said emissions

    Scenario A predicted a significant temperature increase. It is also the scenario that occurred; but that huge temperature
    increase didn’t occur!

    So what do the Climate Change Believers do? They claimed, ad hoc (see link above) that
    human aerosol emissions countered a huge increase in greenhouse gases. Something they never mention until you dig very deep into their webpage (see link above).

    This is ad hoc at its finest. They admitted that “human aerosols ‘forcings’ are not well known.” Then they tweaked the data (defined by the forcings) to get the answer they wanted. Pure ad hoc. Presto, not much global warming, “Scenarios A turns into Scenario C!”

    If predicted temperature increases had happened would this be the claim? Of course not.
    Its similar nonsense to Antarctic cooling and sea ice increase. AGW predicted just the opposite. When it didn’t happen, suddenly AGW predicted that Antarctic cooling was also “consistent” with the theory.

    Heads they win, tails you lose.

    • Keitho says:

      Willis did a pretty good deconstruction of the aerosol and solar effect showing they aren’t big enough at all to offset the projected warming by Hansen.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/co2-and-ceres/

      • Rosco says:

        I believe absolutely nothing that Willis Eschenbach writes since his ridiculous Steel Greenhouse BS and his use of this “science” to criticize Robert Wood – an actual scientist with experimental credibility.

        These people actually believe that greenhouses heat up due to radiation trapping despite numerous experiments showing conclusively that a glass container cannot trap radiation even when such container is evacuated to remove convection altogether.

        For example

        Click to access Didfyz%20paper.pdf


        details an experiment where the cooling effects of a resistor heated to 180 C are recorded for various circumstances including a vacuum in a glass bell jar.

        If the evacuated glass jar “trapped” the radiation and you apply “Willis’s Steel Greenhouse” pseudo physics the resistor shouldn’t cool at all.

        The Bell jar in the laboratory is likely at 72 F – the optimum temperature for the human condition which air conditioning tries to maintain – or about 22 C or 295 K.

        At 295 K the glass jar is emitting around 400 watts per square metre to the resistor and given the view factors plus the “trapped” radiation the resistor should melt.

        After all Willis reckons you can have a single source of energy equivalent to minus 18 C and trap its own radiation – no other – and the back radiation will heat it to 30 degrees C.

        All in a vacuum with zero other radiation !

        Real experimental evidence says this is total pseudo scientific BS yet thousands of experts on WUWT lap this complete crap up as if it is gospel !!

        Watt’s up with that ? Ridiculous mumbo jumbo !

        • Keitho says:

          That’s fine Rosco and I understand your position, however Willis provides the data sets he has used, the R code and the output leading to his conclusions. Perhaps, if you have the time and inclination you could find it in your heart to actually have a look at what he has done and then give us the benefit of your insights. You know, look at the facts and attack them rather than just objectify Willis as the evil denier incarnate.

          Thanks.

    • Dave N says:

      “Orwellian named “skepticalscience.com””

      The website name as a term is a tautology; a point that is lost on the morons who run it.

  5. jimash1 says:

    ” “The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880.”

    I have pointed this out to the nutters several times.
    It is not well received.
    Nevertheless, if one were to inquire about the weather in the 1880s, the most outstanding feature would be the intense, deep, and long-lasting snow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s