2011-05-02 06:33:52Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

You know the drill, let me know if you have any feedback.

Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity

2011-05-02 07:08:56
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.147.180.253

The British have a word to describe statements like this - "bollocks."

Definitely OTT, imho. :)

Here in the UK that word is exceedingly rude - a lot stronger than bullshit - and may cause offence.

I, personally, am not offended and I don't give a tinker's cuss if Lindzen is offended.  I'm thinking of the SkS readers who are devout Christians, Moslems etc.  They aren't all young-earth-creationist anti-science nutters.

Apart from that - another nice job.  Where do you get the energy?

:-)

2011-05-02 07:32:38bollocks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

I thought bollocks was less rude than bullshit.  I hear it almost every time I watch a British TV show!  I can certainly take that out if it's inappropriate.  I don't want to keep the gloves on here though, because Lindzen's comment really was pure unadulterated bullshit.

Where do I get the energy - no kids!

2011-05-02 09:18:54
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.82

"bollocks" is the good old Anglo-Saxon for "testicles"

I agree: Too strong.

2011-05-02 09:31:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Well, you learn something new every day :-)  Guess I'll just stick with "bull excrement".

2011-05-02 09:37:29
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.118.112

Yeah, "bollocks" and "bull excrement" while apt descriptions, detract from the piece. Good stuff and a thumbs up from me.

2011-05-02 09:53:51
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Sounds great!  I don't mind calling a spade an e**ing spade, but we have our comments policy restriction...

From:

Lindzen has acknowledged that the paper contains errors and has claimed that addressing them will not significantly change its results, which still show climate sensitivity less than 1°C for doubled CO2.  However, he has claimed that a revision  has ben in the works for about a year, and still none has been published, which suggests that the journal editors and reviewers were not satisfied with his efforts to respond to the criticisms.

To:

Lindzen has acknowledged that the paper contains errors and has claimed that addressing them will not significantly change its results, which still show climate sensitivity less than 1°C for doubled CO2.  However, he has claimed that a revision  has been in the works for about a year, and still none has been published, which suggests that the journal editors and reviewers were not satisfied with his efforts to respond to the criticisms.


From:

Lindzen and Choi's paper is of course far from the only game in town in terms of estimating climate sensitivity.  In fact ther have been dozens of studies on the subject using a wide variety of methodologies, including both climate models and empirical observational data.  Climate sensitivity has been estimated from paleoclimate data from millions of years ago, tens of thousands of years ago, the last few thousand years, the last few hundred years, from recent responses to large volcanic eruptions, to the solar cycle, and so on and so forth.  These different methodologies have all been consistent with a sensitivity likely between 1.5 and 4.5°C, with a most likely value close to 3°C for doubled CO2 (Figures 1 and 2).

To:

Lindzen and Choi's paper is of course far from the only game in town in terms of estimating climate sensitivity.  In fact there have been dozens of studies on the subject using a wide variety of methodologies, including both climate models and empirical observational data.  Climate sensitivity has been estimated from paleoclimate data from millions of years ago, tens of thousands of years ago, the last few thousand years, the last few hundred years, from recent responses to large volcanic eruptions, to the solar cycle, and so on and so forth.  These different methodologies have all been consistent with a sensitivity likely between 1.5 and 4.5°C, with a most likely value close to 3°C for doubled CO2 (Figures 1 and 2).


 

From:

Fankly, Lindzen's claim that "what we've seen so far" suggests sensitivity is no higher than 1°C for doubled CO2 could not be further from the truth.

To:

Frankly, Lindzen's claim that "what we've seen so far" suggests sensitivity is no higher than 1°C for doubled CO2 could not be further from the truth.

2011-05-02 10:16:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Thanks Daniel.  Hmm okay, how about "baloney"?

2011-05-02 10:21:12
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

You could do like on M.A.S.H. and say "Horsehockey!"

(please tell me you're old enough to remember that show...)


The FKM post reminded me why I don't like doing rebuttals: I get so pissed off all I want to do is curse.

2011-05-02 10:26:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Well, I do like watching re-runs of MASH :-)

Agreed, deniers like Michaels and Lindzen are pretty infuriating, because you know they're intentionally misleading people.

2011-05-02 17:24:26
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Might be worth mentioning, that Lindzen doesn't even include Lindzen & Choi (2009) in his publication list. He also became infuriated when Dessler tried to address L&C09 faults in their debate. Is Lindzen trying to hide the paper while waving the non-peer-reviewed "correction" around?

2011-05-02 20:25:25
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
194.144.161.27

One small detail:

... and satellite measurements of outgoing radiation over very short timeframes, concluding that climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is just 0.5°C.

Other than that - big thumbs up.

2011-05-03 02:54:26
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.147.180.253

Horsehockey?  Horsefeathers!  Now why didn't I remember the Marx Brothers before?

I also forgot to give an upthumb.  sorted!

2011-05-03 04:30:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Hoski - thanks, correction made.

Ari - interesting, but I don't want to make any inferences or assumptions about how Lindzen feels about the paper.  I think the rebuttals speak for themselves.

2011-05-03 05:01:55
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.147

Tried hard to find somenthig to comment on but i couldn't. Good job.

2011-05-03 05:57:44thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Riccardo :-)

2011-05-03 06:06:52
Chris Colose

colose@wisc...
144.92.130.211

Good post Dana,

It's worth noting that Linzen has long abandoned the argument that water vapor feedback would be negative, or perhaps weak.  He had some ideas about how to dry the upper atmosphere back in the early '90s, but he moved on to the IRIS (a cloud, not a vapor feedback) with his 2001 paper, a fundamentally different argument.

2011-05-03 06:16:33thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Chris, good point.  I wasn't sure when Lindzen started to focus more on clouds and less on water vapor, so I appreciate the historical summary there.  I'll add it to the post.

2011-05-03 06:38:36
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Here is Lindzen on his Iris theory in 2006 (interview):

The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. “That was an old view,” Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis. “I find it insane that I am still forced to explain this.”

2011-05-03 06:51:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks oslo, I'll add that quote.  I also used Ari's link to add a discussion on Lindzen's views on water vapor and the iris hypothesis over time, consistent with Chris' comment.

Now that he's given up on a negative water vapor feedback and the iris hypothesis, how exactly does Lindzen still think the net feedback will be negative?  Some other cloud cover change? 

It's really amazing how consistently wrong he's been and yet that he's still taken seriously as some sort of Galileo figure.  I think later in the LI series we should do a post chronicling the history of Lindzen's wrong statements.

  • magnitude of warming and temp record accuracy
  • Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
  • water vapor feedback is negative
  • iris hypothesis
  • cloud feedback is somehow negative despite iris being wrong
  • climate sensitivity is low (LC09 in particular)
2011-05-03 08:11:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.8.40

"It's really amazing how consistently wrong he's been and yet that he's still taken seriously"

Yeah, reminds me of so-called economic experts.

2011-05-03 17:18:42
Chris Colose

colose@wisc...
64.188.12.126

Dana,

I'm quite sure the article oslo linked to is off-base on several points which could be important for the accuracy of your article.  I am not aware of Lindzen ever "disavowing" the IRIS hypothesis, and in fact he speculates that this mechanism may be what is at work to explain his Lindzen and Choi (2009) results (even if this work were true, it only tells you sensitivity is low, not the mechanisms making it low...Lindzen asserts it is possibly IRIS at work in the discussion)  He also co-authored a paper (Rondanelli and Lindzen, 2010, JGR) in which he thinks IRIS was at work in Earth's paleo-atmosphere to help offset the faint young sun, rather than increases in GHG's.  What I think the article wants to say is that he hasn't pushed a "negative water vapor feedback" in a very long time.

2011-05-03 18:58:42
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Ah. Thanks for the clarification on this Chris. So the Iris theory is still a theory that Lindzen believes in, it's just the paper he rejects if I get you correct.

2011-05-04 01:57:09thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Chris.  I'll take out the part about Lindzen backing away from iris then.  It makes more sense that he still believes it because otherwise there's no mechanism that could justify low sensitivity (although I know LC09 doesn't specifically look for mechanisms, but rather just tries [and fails] to measure sensitivity).